The smeared borders is not a problem as long as you use the center part only. Duh. That sounded silly. I mean, for portraits and a lot of other occasions it works just fine. But I wanted a versatile lens possible to use for everything and then it fell short.
That was a nice image, btw, very much to my taste.
Fedex ground delivered this Robot lens very late in the day, so I had to scramble before things got too dark. This is a two second exposure with the Schneider Xenon 40/1.9 @ 1.9. Robot to LTM adapter, LTM to M adapter, Rayqual M adapter, G1.
Robert, does that lens cover the whole sensor? All ratios?
I just got a few lenses to play with today. Two cheapy Wollensaks that are built like tanks, tinier than my Kern 25/1.4, sharp, and cover the sensor at all ratios Heavy little things. And they don't need to be machined! The Som I mention to you before also covers the sensor too--all three are 1" lens. Two are 1.9 and one is 2.5. I'll take them out for a shoot soon. They are an ergonomic nightmare though. The engravings are so small I have to use a loupe to read them and the focus and aperture info is on the underside of the lens of course
I also got a cheapy Kodak 15/2.5 that is surprisingly very nice. It has a neat feature where you can unscrew the front of the lens and rotate it so that the aperture and focus info is on top. Does not cover the sensor completely, even at 16:9.
So far these four don't need to be machined.
Thanks Peter, I can't wait to try out this Xenon tomorrow in real light.
Bill, yes it covers the sensor in all formats, the Robot frame being larger than m4/3.
Did you pick up the Som Berthiot Cinor 25/1.9? I have one of those en route. I'll be very pleased if it covers the sensor...is the c-mount removable so you could rotate so the focus scale is up?
yehh... my new toy ...Jupiter 9...
So far I have four lenses in c-mount that cover the sensor--the three I mentioned and a Canon 50/1.8. The Canon is a very nice lens that is much more ergonomics friendly. It's interesting to me that the three 1" lenses cover the sensor OK, but the 25mm Switar doesn't. Edit: The Switar does cover the sensor at 16:9 wide open.
Last edited by wjlapier; 6th March 2009 at 20:44. Reason: Forgot about hood induced vignette...
Bill, all four of these lenses have set screws on the chrome plated rear part of the lens.
How close does the Switar come to covering the sensor? I assume moreso without the hood, than with it.
This is my go at cine lenses, Hawk adapter and Kodak 25mm 1.4 cine ektar:
The whole set is here:
The lens does have a cmount adapter, so It looks like it could be rotated.
I have not noticed in the thread where any cosmicar examples have been posted. The lenses seem readily available from B&H, at reasonable price, any one know how many blades they have?
Very nice set, Dave. Does that Kodak cover the sensor?
Cosmicar is now sold under the Pentax name, the 25/1.4 Pentax in the photo above is one example. Any Cosmicar-labled lenses that are new, are old stock. Not sure how many blades...
I use G1. I would like to know how to set the camera for MF lens because I can not get the sharp image.
Do you use tripod or not?
Dear MingPop ...
All my shots are hand held. The key is a fast lens, and good focusing technique. Make sure that you have your aperture set to above 2.8, if there is not enough light to get the shutter speed over 1/100, raise the ISO, 1/150 is better.
Make sure the zoom in, that is by using the left arrow, then the middle button.
If you have not adjusted your diopter setting, then you will have some problems focusing. It is best to adjust the diopter while using an autofocus lens.
Hope that this helps.
Very thanks I will try and if I have some problems I will ask you again too. That's very kind of you.
I use FD to m4/3 adapter from jinfinance (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=110341536053) and canon 55mm f1.2 SSC FD lens but the images are soft and unsharp rim. I try that you suggest me, but it's still accur. Tell me more please. Thanks you very much.
I have a nikon 55 1.2, manual focus lens, I use it on my D300 all the time, and from apertures of 4-16 or so, it is razor sharp, I would expect the same of the canon. From 2.8-2.0, the lens is very sharp, from 1.4-1.2, its pretty good. Posting an image would really help.
When dealing with 1.4-1.2, you really have a very shallow DOF, that is, a persons nose can be sharp, and the eyes out of focus, this is not poor technique, but a quality of the optics. On the other hand, Shooting at f8, the whole body should be easy to get in focus.
In order for us to help, as someone has suggested, post a photo, but we will also need to know your focus point, F stop and shutter speed.
As some also asked, it's really important to make sure that you get nice sharp images when using the kit lens in AF, if so, we can most likely eliminate equipment problems on the camera side.
if you can focus sharp MF with the kit lens, then this points to the adapter or lens. If you kit lens images are not sharp in MF mode, then it points to technique.
Kern Switar 50mm F1.8 for Alpa , modified to Leica M mount by MS Optics, Japan
Can rangfind in M mount camera
Still very good performance on G1
Last edited by butterdada; 14th March 2009 at 01:15.
Carl Zeiss Jenna DDR Tevidon 35mm F1.9
A c-mount lens.
But cannot infinity. --> Hawk can resolve this problem.
Bausch & Lomb 26mm F1.9
A c-mount lens
soft when wide open.
Kern Switar 75mm F1.9 all wide open
A c-mount lens
Very sharp when wide open.
The UC Hexanon... how do you use it on the G1? A homemade adapter or did you modify the lens? I understand it as this UC lens has floating elements and wonder there is any special attention needed when modifying it.
What is your general impression of the lens (not thinking of wide open close-ups only)?
If I run into smearing problems I'll get surprised (and a bit upset).
My first pic using G1 + Nokton 35mm F1.2 @F1.2
Leica M9 | SE 18 | Lux 24 | Lux 50 | ZM 35 | Nikon D700 | 35/1.8 | 45 PC-E | 50/1.4 | 70-200 VR II | SB 800+600 |SF 58|
I just have such trouble telling smearing from bokeh, that I will just keep enjoying a lovely image.
When Panasonic does get the 20 out, and more tests are done on the 14-40, I'm pretty sure people will complain about the software correction needed to improve corner sharpness.
The posts all over RFF before lens adapters started appearing was how the G1 was not going to be any good with M mount lenses due to the fact that the 2x crop was going to only use the center part of the lens, therefore losing the aberrations at the edges. Now that people are using M lenses, and there are corner aberrations, it's unacceptable.
a) It only happens with W/A, 50mm and more is OK. I have not tested the 35mm but will, 28mm definitely smear and I do not find anything enjoyable about it.
b) there are other W/A lenses that perform better: Leica R, Nikon, Zeiss Jena, etc., all of which are retrofocus design
My favorite is still the 21-35 Vario Elmar R, it performs beautifully on the G1 with the second favorite being the 16mm Zenitar, the 20mm/4 Nikkor and various 50mm, which all perform well, each one with its own character (Alpa Kern Switar, Speed Panchro, etc.). I am sure a new 50mm Summicron would be excellent, too. Mine is an older, collapsible one which I do not find that great.
Of course, everyone has their own level of acceptability. I just found it rather an ironic situation.
The deepdiver photo above is a good example. I don't see anything unacceptable in that photo; whatever smearing there may be, is simply smearing the bokeh.
I've spent a lot of time looking through full size flickr images with lots of lenses and there are plenty that don't smear, including wide angles.
Above: The left edge of the image here isn't bokeh... It's a smeared part of the image withing the focus plane (and it is ugly, no?).
Now compare to this one:
Above: Taken today. The light and the distance weren't the same but it illustrates the point I hope.
If only possible I prefer a lens not smearing the edges and borders. I want my lenses as versatile as possible. I don't want to have to stop down beyond diffraction limit to get decent borders.
EDIT: Then it is an altogether other thing that some smearing in many a case doesn't matter.
Of course, the preference is for high detail all the way to the edge. That's why people pay big bucks for top quality glass, right? If that's the case, than perhaps the G1 isn't the body to be using with such glass.
That being said, I've found that for the photography I do, very rarely is the subject at the edge of a photograph, and any smearing in the prints that I do is essentially invisible.
In addition, I have a real affinity for vintage glass that heretofore was considered rather dodgy...the Summarits and Canon 50/1.2s and 0.95s of the world, etc. These lenses are by their very nature imperfect, that's what gives them their character. Having never owned any Leica ASPH glass, perhaps I just don't know what I'm missing, but perhaps I'm more willing to accept less than the ideal.
For example I'm currently playing with a Macro Switar H8RX, 36mm f/1.4. It's an amazing little lens, it's designed for 8mm but actually comes within an eyelash of covering the G1 sensor. It has some really interesting character! But it would probably not reach minimum performance of many photographers. I took this photo with it. Uncropped.
Last edited by monza; 18th March 2009 at 06:09.
Hmmm...got me to thinking about the reason so many Canon shooters went to Zeiss and Leica glass for their 1DsII cameras. Are we talking about the same thing here, but calling it something different? Are soft edges now called smearing? If so, I doubt most of you will find a perfect lens that is sharp wide open all across the whole frame. Affordable anyway.
I thought the main reason we were looking at all the cine lenses was to find a wide angle prime lens that was fast and sharp, not to mention small. But if we are to stop down that lens to get sharpness across the frame, then we might as well use the kit lens which is plenty sharp.
The image above with the Nokton looked fine to me and I still don't see the "smearing" in the bokeh.
I just don't think the problem should be neglected. I'm sure most people think the same but sometimes you see comments like Dave's above and if I got the time I can't leave that uncommented.
You mentioned you have seen a lot of good RF lenses. Now that I got my normal and tele needs covered I'm looking for a WA lens and would like something in the 10-12mm range (no smear, no dark corners). Have you seen anything you can recommend?
OK Robert, you need to add to the database how far the smear is from center to edge at different f stops. And how pleasing it might or might not be Being objective of course
And are you satisfied with the smearing? I am notFor example I'm currently playing with a Macro Switar H8RX, 36mm f/1.4. It's an amazing little lens, it's designed for 8mm but actually comes within an eyelash of covering the G1 sensor. It has some really interesting character! But it would probably not reach minimum performance of many photographers. I took this photo with it. Uncropped.
As far as the Macro Switar 36/1.4 image above, I like that look and others I have shown it to liked it. None complained about smearing. That doesn't mean everyone will like it. I have to do more testing and adjusting on that lens as it's an RX which means it has an even shorter flange distance than a regular c-mount lens.