SLR Magic HyperPrime LM 50mm T0.95 Review

[ashwinrao1]

I will just put in that I have very much enjoyed the lens. I have asked Andrew to address the Loctite issue publicly, if he is willing. I decided to sell the lens, not due to any lack of optical prowess or capacity, which I found to be fantastic, but rather because I have had the f/0.95 Noctilux and found the SLR magic to be redundant in the face of a pending M Monochrom purchase.

I have not had any mechanical failures or issues to date. Focus has been well within the tolerances of my own photographic style. This is a very specialized beast, and it does what it needs to do (shooting wide open or nearly wide open) well, despite its size.

I think it's rendering is second only to the f/0.95 Noctilux, in terms of the options at around f/1 (this is entirely a personal opinion).

I have pulled the lens from the GetDPI sales forum, since there's so much negative discussion about it...yet, unlike others, I have yet to experience a failure or issue. I suspect that there are only a handful (10? 20?) of these lenses floating around. In its favor, one of the test copies that made it around was built robustly enough to withstand multiple travels and use by multiple reviewers, albeit within a short window. Unfortunately, other copies, including Stephens, were not up to the same build quality. Andrew has been in touch with me, but hasn't responded yet on the Loctite issue. He has many theories on focus calibration related to DOF of this lens and rangefinder and lens miscalibration, and apparently has some individuals of far higher regard than I are in the process of reviewing it to weigh in with their opinions. I sincerely hope that this lens can find a way to the market that's peaceful and instills confidence in its owners. It's clear to me, from Stephen's comments and those of another couple of friends with whom I have shared discussions (all of us have owned the lens) that the lens is capable of greatness, but is flawed in some copies and for some photographic purposes...For the purposes of my image capturing skills, it is entirely adequate, and for the time being, I plan to keep using it regularly, as it is a capable photographic tool. JMHO, as a user...(and in my case, as a happy user to date)...

But I do feel firmly that the loctite/lens assembly issue and focus calibration should be discussed and addressed by SLR magic.

Until then, here are some photos that I have taken with the Hyperprime:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ashwinrao1/sets/72157629597129504/

 

[ashwinrao1]

Oh so controversial, but the lens still takes some nice shots...here with the XP-1 and Hawks M adapter to get even closer....harsh midday sun...

Plus four from the M9...

 

[3D-Kraft.com]

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.

That's nonsense and neither I said that nor did I read from SLR Magic representitives that there is no mechanical difference. They share the same optical design but of course there is a mechanical difference due to the additional mechanics required for the RF coupling. Put them on a weigh or in an X-ray and you will see the difference. As I read so far, SLR Magic took off the transaction-cancellation fees and shipment costs from those who insisted on a refund without giving the chance for repair or replacement. If you feel that this is criminal that should be discussed with your lawyer and not in a photo forum.

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%.

"Around", "I believe", "I believe"... that all sounds very reasonable...
Provides us their reports and we may believe.

To quote Gary Tyson from F8 Photography in Hong Kong, "The Hyperprime vignettes worse than a fat whore's thighs".

That's ridiculous and not suitable for the work of Gary Tysen. If you read his blog about that lens, it speaks a different language: SLR Magic 50mm 0.95 first look in Hong Kong | F8 Photography

I could not find what you quoted. I could not test it on fullframe but on APS-C it vignettes less and the next time I can compare it on the M9 I will show facts. Unless you do not show proofs of the opposite, this is simply a subjective proposition from someone who seems to have an open bill with SLR Magic.

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.

Again I do not have an issue with focussing at infinite (with both samples I got). May be that this is another difference between the LM and the CINE version but again I am not sure what your expectation is here. If you expect a lens optimzed for open aperture shooting and creating creamy bokeh in out of focus areas to render landscapes as sharp at infite as an APO Summicron, you propably have an expectation that the HyperPrime can not fullfill.

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.

I only spoke for the CINE version and I still see no reason why customers should avoid that lens. I can not and do not speak for the LM version but as long as there is a discussion that tends to be biased I say what I think and depict the caveats that I see. I am neither an employee nor associated or affiliated with SLR Magic. I simply like those products that they designed by themselves like the HyperPrime 12mm/T1.6 and the 50mm CINE T0.95, because they provide good optical results for a reasonable price in very specialized segments and my personal experience with their products and service is good so far. I had some problems with a (paid) sample of the six early prototypes as well but I do not expect prototypes sent to volunteers to be perfect from start. After I provided neutral feedback and pointed out the problems of that lens with detailed reports and proving photos it was replaced and the new copy is simply good.

If you read my articles on 3D-Kraft.com about their lenses, you see that I also provided realistic critics and image samples for all my findings. I tested products from Leica, Zeiss, Nikon and other more notable manufacturers as well which have their strenghts and weaknesses as well so I believe I know how to valuate also SLR Magics products.

I also do not see this "overwhelming majority of early adopters with failures" but I saw other bloggers like Steve Huff putting out a warning on their site although they did not report problems with their own copies. As long as we have this situation, it is not possible to judge on a reasonable basis of documented reports. Not for the LM version and especially not for the CINE version (and I am sure I am not the only single person in the world using that).

Wouldn't that imply that these lenses had different optical formulas? Or very sophisticated compensating lens elements? What was the explanation for this?

I have seen reports about an early prototype with only 9 lenses but I think the early six samples used in the beginning of this year were all the newer 12 lens versions. I read that they might have had differences in coating and in adjustment/calibration. They also had different rings on the front element etc. I think that's a normal situation when a company sends out early test prototypes.

And from what I have seen, the OOF rendering from this lens is far short of any Noctilux version, and even other lenses.

Thats nonsense as well and there are already enough comparison photos on Steve Huff's site, on my site and others with the Noctilux, the CV Nokton 50/1.1, the Summilux 50/1.4 and others as well. You may also take a look at the latest comparison photos I took at open aperture with the HyperPrime CINE T0.95 and the Noctilux 50/0.95 today: SLRMCINE-NOCTILUX-Vergleich (PRIVATE!) - a set on Flickr
OK, they were taken with a NEX-7 so there is an APS-C crop and the situation did not offer motifs with high contrast or highlights but at least you can compare the OOF rendering quite well and if I did not write it below the images I am quite sure you were not able to say what is from the Noctilux and what is from the HyperPrime.

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).

Focus shift was not the only focussing issue that users had with the Leica Noctilux 50/1.0 as well. Everyone who tried to focus with that lens at close distances propably knows what I mean and this was one of the several reasons why it was replaced by the 50/0.95 ASPH.

Yes, using a different camera is a solution for an unusable RF mechanism.

I think that is one of the few points in that we agree althogh again coming from different sides but this is propably not the right place to trigger another discussion about the limitations of the RF mechanism (in general).

 

[Brian S]

I will take the opinions of users with first-hand experience with the RF lens mounted on an Rf camera, rather than someone using it for cinema. The mechanism is different, the method of focus is different, and the tolerances are far more critical.

All this has shown: there are more than one versions of the RF version of the lens, and it seems Stephen's is closer to the intended production unit. It has problems, and the fix to these problems has not been addressed by the company. Head in the Sand attitudes show this company is far from ready for prime time.

 

[GDI]

Thats nonsense as well and there are already enough comparison photos on Steve Huff's site, on my site and others with the Noctilux, the CV Nokton 50/1.1, the Summilux 50/1.4 and others as well. You may also take a look at the latest comparison photos I took at open aperture with the HyperPrime CINE T0.95 and the Noctilux 50/0.95 today: SLRMCINE-NOCTILUX-Vergleich (PRIVATE!) - a set on Flickr
OK, they were taken with a NEX-7 so there is an APS-C crop and the situation did not offer motifs with high contrast or highlights but at least you can compare the OOF rendering quite well and if I did not write it below the images I am quite sure you were not able to say what is from the Noctilux and what is from the HyperPrime.

No it is not nonsense; please don't get too excited, this is just a conversation.

Have you looked at the samples posted on Ashwin's Flickr link? The out of focus areas in multiple shots show significant "nervous", or double-line boke. Personally I have have rarely seen such rendering with a Noctilux F1.0.

Here is an example: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7100/6995063518_2734618be1_b.jpg

Focus shift was not the only focussing issue that users had with the Leica Noctilux 50/1.0 as well. Everyone who tried to focus with that lens at close distances propably knows what I mean and this was one of the several reasons why it was replaced by the 50/0.95 ASPH.

It was not obvious you were comparing it with the new Noctilux, it seemed you were comparing it to the Hyperprime. Anyway, if the reports of the inability to achieve consistent focus across the range of distance are true, then focus shift is going to be of secondary concern. I would agree that the new Noctilux is desirable over the Old one, but that has nothing to do with a comparison with the Hyperprime.

Also, you didn't reply to my question regarding the use of German Schott glass in the lens. Is there documentation on that? To me this is an important questions to establish credibility for a company whose prior products were re-purposed CCTV lenses. Personally, I would want to know who designed the lens,what the optical formula was, see diagrams and MTF measurements, as well as understand how the RF was designed and calibrated, before spending $5000 on it. Of course the answers to those questions for other name-brand lenses is clear, and transparent.

Again, I hope you keep enjoying your lens...

 

[ashwinrao1]

In speaking with Andrew back in January, he reported directly to me that the lens elements were essentially obtained either through Schott or through Japanese manufacture. When attempting to use only Japanese glass, a prior prototypel had unusually yellow rendering, so the decision was made to use Schott glass in at least some of the 12 elements to counteract that yellow cast in the model that we are all debating. This is from my recollections, discussing the lens design directly with Andrew.

As for nervous bokeh, yeah the Hyperprime (my copy) definitely demonstrates more of that than the 10K f/0.95 Noctilux...the lens rendering reminds me of some of the older, more "classic" designs with busier bokeh, though in some instaces, the lens is capable of very creamy bokeh (see some of the images above). Much depends on what is in the background, and how far from the focused distance the background objects come into play....

 

[3D-Kraft.com]

Regarding the bokeh in fact I saw differences as well. If you check my samples at Flickr: SLR Magic HyperPrime CINE 50mm T0.95 there are enough different situations with highlights, high and low contrasts, different distances to background etc. In no case I would rate it "nervous". But I saw also examples of other users (e.g. also the early copy that Seb Farges received) that did show less neutral circles of confusions (COF) and some of Ashwins examples also appeared a bit nervous (similar to that what I saw with a Noctilux 50/1.0 E60 copy that I owned for some time in 2010).

When I used that lens at F1.4 I preffered the bokeh to that of the Noctilux (also the 50/0.95) because of the COFs keept nicely round by the HyperPrime aperture blades whereas the Noctilux COFs already had visible edges at F1.4. The most perfect bokeh at F1.4 had the Summilux 50/1.4 ASPH in my tests.

Regarding glass elements from Schott and other manufacturers I heard similar things like Ashwin. In fact, this is less important for me as I valuate what comes out at the rear end and not what it says on the label.

 

[SYGTAFOTO]

There is no point to talk about image quality here because that is not the main point of concern.
It's probably best to wait for a formal reply from Andrew himself to address the issue with loctite.

 

[StephenPatterson]

I can not and do not speak for the LM version but as long as there is a discussion that tends to be biased I say what I think and depict the caveats that I see. I am neither an employee nor associated or affiliated with SLR Magic...

I also do not see this "overwhelming majority of early adopters with failures" but I saw other bloggers like Steve Huff putting out a warning on their site although they did not report problems with their own copies. As long as we have this situation, it is not possible to judge on a reasonable basis of documented reports. Not for the LM version and especially not for the CINE version (and I am sure I am not the only single person in the world using that).

How is it that I am biased? Does the fact that I had three failures of the Hyperprime qualify me as biased? How about Dave Grady in Sydney, who received his new Hyperprime only to find that the rangefinder calibration rendered the lens unusable on his M9. Of course Dave tried to use the lens on his NEX7, but within three days the focus ring broke apart (because it's held on with Loctite) rendering the lens an expensive doorstop. Does that make us biased? How about Jason Howe or Max Klimov, who both received Hyperprime lenses that were unusable due to being hopelessly misaligned. These users never got a chance to see if the lens would hold together, because the samples they received were not properly calibrated. This is but a sample of actual users experiences as I do not have permission to repost every failure, poor customer service or demand for huge restocking fees that I have received from customers in private correspondence.

The only one here who seems to be biased is you, because of your unflagging support and endorsement of the Hyperprime in spite of the overwhelming evidence of the early adopters calibration and mechanical failures.

When SLR Magic and Andrew recall this hopelessly flawed lens, refund everyone's money without charging a 20% fee and redesign the mechanical housing of the lens to completely do away with Loctite thread locking compound to hold the lens together then I will be happy to give this lens a second look.

 

[StephenPatterson]

That's ridiculous and not suitable for the work of Gary Tysen. If you read his blog about that lens, it speaks a different language: SLR Magic 50mm 0.95 first look in Hong Kong | F8 Photography

I could not find what you quoted. I could not test it on fullframe but on APS-C it vignettes less and the next time I can compare it on the M9 I will show facts. Unless you do not show proofs of the opposite, this is simply a subjective proposition from someone who seems to have an open bill with SLR Magic.

Gary Tyson's (not Tysen) quote that "The Hyperprime vignettes more than a fat whore's thighs" was made in person to me in Hong Kong, as I was asking him about his experiences with the lens. At the time my lens was broken (I believe #2), so I was interested in his experiences. Gary wrote a nice article on the optical qualities of the lens, but like many of us his experience with the mechanical qualities left much to be desired. Shortly after writing the review he sold his lens, and was very happy to do so.

My personal experience with the Hyperprime on the M9 full frame sensor is that vignetting is extreme, much more so that with the 0.95 Noctilux.

The only one who seems to have an open bill with SLR Magic is you, more than likely in the form of free or substantially discounted lenses.

 

[3D-Kraft.com]

Shortly after writing the review he sold his lens, and was very happy to do so.

This could have other reasons as well - e.g. simply to make profit for other planned investments.

Stephen, you write a lot (also about what others may have said) but what portion of that is proved? Your controversal wording does not help to make this more reliable and lets me speculate about different interests like you impute that to me. I also had private conversations which show some aspects in a different light than you reported so there is still opinion against opinion - both unproved with respect to others privacy.

Of course I have no doubt that there were samples with mechanical flaws especially in the first LM prototypes and may be also in the early production batches - also my first sample was not in perfect condition and I reported that as well. But I saw that SLR Magic learned from that and handled it in a satisfying manner.

Beside all speculation you also could read here that not everyone had these mechanical issues and that SLR Magic tries to solve those which are known from the early samples or reported accurately. So it is not a general problem affecting all samples and I do not see a general problem in the usage of adhesives at all as I see that in the aeroplane industry as well (not only to fix screws) but of course it must be done in a lasting manner and needs experience and may be a learning curve. I hope for them that they find a good way to prove that as I still feel confident about the optical quality of that construction.

As I am fed up with all these uncountable discussions about RF calibration issues (not only related to that handful of SLR Magic lenses) I will not participate in and suffer from that anymore (that's why I am using the CINE version). I am quite sure that as soon as the first hybrid fullframe mirrorless with an EVF comparable to that of the NEX-7 will appear on the market, these discussion will become history anyway (except from those who think they must protect their RF investment).

 

[chrism]

I can't see myself going on flogging a dead horse this much unless I'm being paid to do it.

Chris

 

[StephenPatterson]

Stephen, you write a lot (also about what others may have said) but what portion of that is proved? Your controversal wording does not help to make this more reliable and lets me speculate about different interests like you impute that to me. I also had private conversations which show some aspects in a different light than you reported so there is still opinion against opinion - both unproved with respect to others privacy.

My statements are not opinion, but fact, and the facts are these...

1. The Hyperprime is capable of some beautiful images, but has had an unacceptably high number of mechanical failures.

2. The Hyperprime mechanical design cut corners, and to quote Andrew from SLR Magic "It would be impossible to build the Hyperprime with conventional hardware, so we had to use Loctite to hold it together. We use blue Loctite because it isn't permanent, and often the lens has to come apart several times during calibration". When he told me this after my second failure I was, to say the least, shocked. I don't know why he told me this, and he probably regrets he did, but that is the way it happened.

3. SLR Magic (actually Andrew, as I now believe there are fewer than three people working for this company and everything is subcontracted out in mainland China) is absolutely terrible at communication and has a bad habit of not responding to emails. One friend of mine in Paris finally gave up trying to buy a Hyperprime, and instead purchased a new Noctilux (to his great relief now). He likes to tell people that there is only a 14 day return policy, even though no warranty or terms of purchase were ever supplied. He then started the whole 20% restocking fee, which was anything but popular. Some people who had not even received the lens yet, but wished to cancel due to all the reported failures, were charged restocking fees. This is absolutely criminal.

After my third failure I demanded a refund, which Andrew did not agree to. He suggested I sell the lens to some Hong Kong shop in a convoluted three way transaction. I suggested he return my money, which he finally did, but then took it upon himself to send emails to a friend of mine in Hong Kong saying how I had "blackmailed" him. What utter nonsense. At this point I lost all respect for Andrew and his unprofessional company.

The fact of the matter is I am just a former customer, albeit a dissatisfied one, who received three flawed copies of the Hyperprime, asked for and received a refund, and was personally attacked for not being a fanboy. I did receive a substantial (40%) discount on the purchase of the Hyperprime, and in the beginning I was quite impressed with it's performance, but my opinions have never been for sale and I now see that the lens and the company (Andrew) are a train wreck. I am doing my utmost to inform people of the facts as they occurred, in the hope that others will not make a $5000 mistake.

 

[rayyan]

Mr. 3D-Kraft.com methinks that thou dost protesth too much. Here, there and everywhere.

Best regards.

 

[Double Negative]

Mr. 3D-Kraft.com methinks that thou dost protesth too much. Here, there and everywhere.

I'd have to agree. :deadhorse:

While I can understand offering another user perspective, the defense of this lens across multiple forums is a little... Tedious. Perhaps the CINE is different from the LM. All we know is that the LM version has *multiple* problems and the company itself is essentially unknown. That's all that really needs to be said.

In any event, I'm shipping out the copy I used for the review this thread is about and should be getting a fresh copy to compare against. The review will be updated where appropriate... And who knows, maybe that 50mm Ultra-fast Shootout can finally happen.

 

[Double Negative]

How predictable that the thread on LUF has turned into yet another shitfest too.

 

[milesab]

Hi,

I have just received my Hyperprime 50mm 0.95 lens and I need some advice. I have had some problems focusing the lens. I have been in contact with Andrew and he said that lenses with large apertures may have some front focusing issues. So I have completed a number of tests and comparisons with other lens I own.

I have used 3 lens. SLR Magic, Voigtlander f1.1 and a Zeiss f1.4. They are all 50mm lens and all are shot at the widest aperture.. The first photos are taken using a focus chart. Distance to chart was about 1.1m. As you can see the SLR Magic front focuses a lot. The other two lenses are focusing around the zero mark. Also the photo doesn't really seem to be in focus compared to the other two lenses. It isn't sharp.

On the infinity test I used the SLR Magic with the ND8 filter so I could shoot side open. I compared it with the Zeiss with an ND filter (as I don't have an ND filter for the voigtlander I didn't test that). The SLR Magic does seem to have a halo effect at infinity as well. See the white flag pole. The Zeiss does not have this.

I bought this lens on the review of Steve Huff who stated that this lens is about as pin sharp as the Leica Noctilux (new version). I did take some test shots around 2m and over and the lens looked ok. However I'm concerned about this front focussing which is much more than any other lens I own. Also the lens isn't so pin sharp.

SLR Magic

Zeiss F1.4

Voiglander F1.1

SLR Magic 0.95

Zeiss 1.4

The question is if this focus shift is acceptable. I would have great difficulty guessing to have objects in focus that are within 2m or more. Also these photos seem to have a halo effect which is more pronounced close up.

Any feedback would be appreciated because I'm in a discussion with Andrew to see if I need to send this lens back or is this the best that this lens offers?

Regards,

Miles

 

[Brian S]

This amount of focus shift is not acceptable.

The amount of front-focus shown is large, the optics are too far from the image plane. Alternatively, the focal length of the lens might be wrong. Focus the lens on an object at infinity and post some cropped shots. If the focus is accurate at infinity, but the lens front-focuses at close range: The focal length is too short. If focus is off across the range, the optics module needs to be moved closer to the image plane.

Back-focus can be easily and quickly corrected by making the RF cam thicker. I used 1 layer of copper tape for my Nokton 50/1.1 and 35/1.2 on the M9.

 

[D&A]

This amount of focus shift is not acceptable.

The amount of front-focus shown is large, the optics are too far from the image plane. Alternatively, the focal length of the lens might be wrong. Focus the lens on an object at infinity and post some cropped shots. If the focus is accurate at infinity, but the lens front-focuses at close range: The focal length is too short. If focus is off across the range, the optics module needs to be moved closer to the image plane.

Back-focus can be easily and quickly corrected by making the RF cam thicker. I used 1 layer of copper tape for my Nokton 50/1.1 and 35/1.2 on the M9.

Brian, from my experience it may be possible that a lens who's focal length is too short, may exhibit obvious font focusing at close range (min. distance), but when the same lens is shot at infinity objects at that distance may actually appear in focus due to the increase in size of the depth of field.
The halo effect thats being seen at infinity sounds more like "uncorrected "SA" or alternatively may be that the focus is off at that distance (which can induce a halo effect on brightly lit objects) but its too hard to see with such small detail at that disctance.

Crops of the test images "above" would be quite useful to see.

Dave (D&A)

 

[milesab]

I made one mistake in my past post. The lens I used was a Zeiss f1.5 not f1.4.

Anyhow, This is the SLR Magic at infinity cropped:

The second photo is the Zeiss f1.5 cropped.

I think the Zeiss looks better and cleaner.