Perfect performance can't be all wrong...
I'm happy to hear there is nothing to worry about for the conversion. I have one on its way and it will be fun making it fit and try it out.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I'm happy to hear there is nothing to worry about for the conversion. I have one on its way and it will be fun making it fit and try it out.
petermcwerner
Member
Hi butterdata,
Does it not smear in the corners like other RF Leica lenses?
Peter, you can check the samples posted above by butterdada. The Hexanon UC 28/1.8 is an AR lens made for the Konica SLR cameras. UC is, to my limited understanding, a short for Ultra Compact, Ultra Close and Ultra Coating - whatever all that means. The 28/1.8 isn't exactly Ultra Compact with rangefinder measures but not very big either.
If I run into smearing problems I'll get surprised (and a bit upset).
regards, /Jonas
petermcwerner
Member
Nice picture, but unfortunately a lot of smearing in the corners, like most if not all RF W/A lenses.
petermcwerner
Member
Jonas,
I was not aware it was a SLR lens, they usually have not the smearing problem, being retrofocus designs. As for the samples, they are in 16/9 format and most of the smearing problems appear in 4/3
regards,
Peter
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.
Dave
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.
Dave
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.
petermcwerner
Member
I think it IS unacceptable, and it was a big letdown for many of us, butThe 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.
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.
Take this one:
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.
So it is, that's what psychology and ideas do to us...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.
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.
regards, /Jonas
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.
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:
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 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.
Sometimes that's the preference, yes. I have no problems using less than perfect lenses (they all are anyway). I have a WTB ad up right now...
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?
regards, /Jonas
No.
I agree about the CV35/1.2 image. The smearing there is doesn't matter in that image.
regards, /Jonas
Jonas, The time I didn't care for the smearing was when I used the Wollensaks for some landscape stuff ( mostly testing the lenses ) and the edges were smeared pretty bad even at f/11, so in this case I probably would be more careful of the lens used, and most likely I'd use the kit lens.
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 :thumbup:
petermcwerner
Member
There are excellent vintage lenses, and I love some of them, but even in vintage lenses I would look for the best, the Kinoptik, Zeiss, Schneider, etc. and only those that really cover the whole sensor area without smearing, bad distortion, vignetting, etc.
And are you satisfied with the smearing? I am not
I don't know of any RF lenses of that focal length
...the photos I investigated on flickr had some WA RF lenses that didn't smear, I'll have to go back and look at my previous post...I guess that's where the discussion gets interesting. Who is the arbiter of 'best?' Methinks that 'best' is highly dependent on the individual. Otherwise, there would not be so many camera brands and lenses.
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.
Yup; landscapes, documentary in general, architecture, panoramas...
Then again, for other images I really don't care about the corners:
(posted once earlier, I'm sorry for that)
Cheers, /Jonas