Wait, that's Pete's Cafe on 4th and Main!
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!
Wait, that's Pete's Cafe on 4th and Main!
Remember, "unbelievable" can be taken two ways!Yeah... Optically they seem pretty nice.
We're working with SLR Magic to get another copy for review.
Your post makes perfect sense; I have seen loctite used in many situations, and used it myself - as a threadlocker! Of course "Loctite", the corporation, makes adhesives as well, but it seems the product used here is a threadlocker.Red Loctite is designed as a thread locking compound, but SLR Magic are using it as an epoxy to hold the lens together. Andrew explained to me (after my second lens failure) that there is insufficient room in the mechanical design for traditional screw fasteners to hold the lens together. Without the use of adhesives this lens would not be possible to assemble. As using epoxy would destroy the lens during disassembly the only choice for SLR Magic was to use Loctite.
Using Loctite in this way is unlike any other manufacturer (in spite of SLR Magic's attempted claims to the contrary) and is not what Loctite is designed for. No Leica or Zeiss lens is held together with thread locking compound, from Loctite or any other manufacturer. I believe over time, especially in high heat and humidity, all of the SLR Magic Hyperprime lenses will fail. I urged Andrew to recall this lens, but I believe he is ignoring the facts and hoping the problem will just go away.
Installing a proper RF coupling and and adjusting it sounds better than using "muscle memory" to focus!Not being in focus across range for a normal lens: The focal length of the optics is off, or the index of the cam does not match the exact focal length of the optics.
For a lens like this: I would expect the exact focal length to agree with the Leica standard of 51.6mm, as that is what the RF is calibrated to. If the focal length deviates, the Cam of the lens needs to be indexed across range- and for a normal lens, this cut in the cam would be less than 0.1mm as it goes from 1m to infinity.
After reading Stephen's experience here and at the other forum, this lens should be avoided.
I believe this was a marketing decision. The Hyperprime is already 40% larger and heavier than the 0.95 Noctilux, and they wanted to keep it as close as possible in appearance to the Leica lens. The Hyperprime is so heavy that when mounted on the M9 you can cause the rangefinder patch to move a significant amount just buy supporting the weight of the lens or letting in hang in the mount. Now I know that certain designs, such as jet airliner wings, are designed to flex...but M mount lenses, not so much.I cannot understand why this company cannot make the fittings larger to accommodate proper assembly.
I also get the impression that you are talking quite loudly and positively about the Hyperprime, based upon the fact that 100% of your posts on Leica Users Forum and here at GetDPI are in defense of SLR Magic, so let's call a spade a spade...I got the impression that at the moment there are a few people talking quite loud about negative experiences with that lens and some others just jumped on that train in order to spread their subjective perception from other readings. At the moment this is propably no representative balance to satisfied users/customers simply using that lens and not spending their time writing in forums.
By Andrew's own admission there is no mechanical difference between the LM (RF coupled) version and the CINE or non-calibrated version. It's the same lens, so trying to suggest that the problems are limited to only a small selection of lenses is false. Also the communication from SLR Magic and demand for 20% penalty for those seeking refunds for faulty lenses is nothing short of criminal.So far I recognized complaints only about the LM (RF coupled) version of that lens and those people that had problems with their early prototypes either got a replacement or a refund.
I was at the Steve Huff LA Workshop in January where Andrew showed us the lens and allowed us to purchase at $2600. There were around 25 people in attendance, and I believe around 12 of us ordered lenses. Of that group I believe the failure rate to be around 80%. At this point every person I know who has received this lens has either had a mechanical failure, has received a lens so far out of calibration as to be unusable, or has decided to not keep the lens and sell. Not very impressive.My first copy had some debris inside as well and the focus ring was a bit too free-moving. The debris was not directly visible but seemed to cause a spot close to the center of the COCs. The mechanical condition was still unchanged after carrying it three weeks on a round trip through Cuba where it had a hard time.
To quote Gary Tyson from F8 Photography in Hong Kong, "The Hyperprime vignettes worse than a fat whore's thighs".This lens has nothing to do with the earlier Noktor 50/0.95 (that did not cover the fullframe sensor and was far away from the optical performance of their new construction). One of the design goals of that lens was that it should have less vignetting than the current Noctilux. This required larger lens elements (some are said to be made by Schott, Germany; in fact it has an 0.92 aperture) and so a larger barrel.
I'm a pretty big fan of the optical properties of the Hyperprime, although I did have issues. I agree that center resolution is excellent, I disagree that the lens vignettes less than the 0.95 Noctilux (which I own) and I agree that the Hyperprime also has less purple fringing, although this really is a non-issue as it is easily corrected in post. It's just too bad that these elements are not in a lens built by Zeiss or Voigtlander. None of the Hyperprime lenses I used was capable of sharp focus at infinity, and I have heard this same complaint from several other early adopters.Although I am not speaking for the LM (RF coupled) version, I think that my experiences regarding the excellent optical performance can be applied to current samples of that version as well. It has at least the same center resolution, less vignetting and less purple fringing at open aperture as the Noctilux 50/0.95 and I would judge the out-of-focus rendering on the same level.
You really see no reason why customers should avoid buying the Hyperprime? Seriously? When an overwhelming majority of the early adopters either had mechanical and or calibration failures you see no reason not to recommend this lens? To make a statement like that, coupled with the fact that you have only posted on Leica forums on this issue in defense of SLR Magic, leads me to seriously question whether your statements are those of an unbiased customer or rather an employee or associate of SLR Magic.So for those who do not need the RF coupled version (adapting to NEX, X Pro 1 or may be a M10 later when it does not rely on rangefinder focusing exclusively anymore), I see no reason to avoid that lens.
But it isn't just unreasonable complaints from a few customers. Responses from the company rep confirm that the lens uses threadlocker as a mechanical fastener, and that he feels the focus problems are to be expected. (If the posters here can be trusted in their accounts; and I can see no reason to doubt them).I got the impression that at the moment there are a few people talking quite loud about negative experiences with that lens and some others just jumped on that train in order to spread their subjective perception from other readings. At the moment this is propably no representative balance to satisfied users/customers simply using that lens and not spending their time writing in forums.
Wouldn't that imply that these lenses had different optical formulas? Or very sophisticated compensating lens elements? What was the explanation for this?Some copies had circles of confusion (COC) with hard rings, some others were rendering very neutral (my copy as well).
Now your are getting somewhere. One of my biggest questions was "where are they sourcing the glass for the optics?" However, the claim that the glass is made by Schott in Germany is not borne out by the SLR Magic website, which indicates it is made in Japan.One of the design goals of that lens was that it should have less vignetting than the current Noctilux. This required larger lens elements (some are said to be made by Schott, Germany; in fact it has an 0.92 aperture) and so a larger barrel.
Indications from the website are that the only difference between the versions are the mount and RF coupling, and of course that would make sense. And from what I have seen, the OOF rendering from this lens is far short of any Noctilux version, and even other lenses.Although I am not speaking for the LM (RF coupled) version, I think that my experiences regarding the excellent optical performance can be applied to current samples of that version as well. It has at least the same center resolution, less vignetting and less purple fringing at open aperture as the Noctilux 50/0.95 and I would judge the out-of-focus rendering on the same level.
Focus shift has nothing to do with a lens not being able to properly focus across its range. If the RF indicates focus at one distance that is correct and another that is not correct, the lens is simply flawed. I can't imagine such a lens would see the light of day if from Leica, or CV/Zeiss. (See Brian's post above).As far as the RF calibration is concerned, I can not understand those people recommending the older Noctilux 50/1.0 as this had significant problems with focus shift and a strong vignetting that you even see when adapting it to a little FourThirds sensor and disturbed out-of-focus rendering at open aperture.
Yes, using a different camera is a solution for an unusable RF mechanism.So for those who do not need the RF coupled version (adapting to NEX, X Pro 1 or may be a M10 later when it does not rely on rangefinder focusing exclusively anymore), I see no reason to avoid that lens.