SLR Magic HyperPrime LM 50mm T0.95 Review

[Brian S]

I believe the focal length of the SLRMagic lens is off. The cropped image at infinity is in good focus, too good to be the shim being off. The close-up/wide-open shot is way off.

This is what I think is going on: From the pictures shown, infinity in good focus and close-up showing front-focus: the focal length is too short, less than 51.6mm required to work with a Leica standard RF. At infinity, focus agrees. The focus throw from infinity to 1.1m as shown is too far for the focal length of the optics. The RF is calibrated for 51.6mm, the actual focal length is off.

My hands-on experience with adjusting focal length on a lens to agree with a Leica RF is limited to Jupiter-3 5cm F1.5 and Summarit 5cm F1.5 lenses. The Summarit: actual was 51.1mm, front-focus at close range, good at infinity. I moved the rear module out to make it work at F1.5 across all ranges. Jupiter-3: had focal length too short on one, moved out rear. Too-long on most, moved the rear module in closer to the front optics.

Dave: Lenses are usually shimmed for Infinity. So of Four Summarit 5cm f1.5 lenses that I have examined, all were sharp at infinity and all front-focus at F1.5. Internally, they were scribed "51.1". On Jupiter-3 lenses: they are made to the Zeiss Contax 52.4mm (Nominal) standard. If you shim them for Infinity, they will back-focus when used close-up. I shim them for best focus used close-up. On most, infinity is good by F2.8 because of rear-ward focus shift. If it is off, I decrease the focal length my moving the rear triplet in. I had ONE 1950 J-3 in Contax mount that looked unused. It was unused: the actual focal length was closer to 50mm. I moved the rear optics out, converted it to Leica mount. The Zeiss serial number on it shows it as being made in April 1945. It was assembly practice for KMZ.

Send the lens back. I cannot understand why this problem was not caught before the lens was shipped to you.

 

[D&A]

Brian,

Thanks for your response and explanations. The infinity crop of the SLR magic lens looks soft (even if I didn't see the comparison crop of the Zeiss). Based on this one crop, it sort of appears to be in focus but I'd need to see additional tests at infinity. Its sort of hard to tell if focus is correct at infinity or not, based on my experience of testing optics.

I do hope this all gets sorted out for those who have purchased this lens and are experiencing problems.

Dave (D&A)

 

[milesab]

Brian thank you for your answer. It does indeed seem that there is something wrong with the lens. Even shooting at 1.1m with f0.95 the focus point isn't even in the depth of field.

Here are some more sample pics at different fstops.

SLR Magic 2.0

SLR Magic 2.8

SLR Magic 5.6

SLR Magic 8.0

I also tried a few shots around the apartment to see how it handles for normal photos. This was taken at 3.5m f0.95. I took 5 shots and even though I know this lens front focused I couldn't nail a single shot. Of course if I kept playing with the focus I would eventually get it but that isn't really the point. Sometimes you only have one chance to take a photo.

 

[StephenPatterson]

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

Miles, it's not the worst SLR Magic calibration I've seen, but it's completely unacceptable. My third lens was much better than this at 1m, but looked about the same at infinity (soft with a definite halo effect). I think you can probably judge from my previous posts how I feel about this lens and whether or not you should keep it.

Good luck (I'm afraid you're gonna need it)...

 

[D&A]

Hi Milesab,

I tried clicking on your posted images but they it wouldn't lead to a more maginified view, so its very hard to judge. IS it possible to post your images with the long side at approx 1100 pixes and possibly something higher than 72dpi (if thats what you have it set to). It would then be easier ot judge what you are observing although from your worded description, it does appear the lens needs to be looked at.

Thanks!

Dave (D&A)

 

[milesab]

Dave,

All the photos are on Flikr. Here is the link to the set.

Testing SLR Magic Hyperprime 0.95 - a set on Flickr

You can zoom in on the photos as well.

 

[milesab]

I also received a reply from Steve Huff. I wanted to see if he has had similar issues. This was his reply:

"I posted an update to my review months ago because 1-2 guys have told me they had issues with the lens they received. I had no problems with my lens at all, none, and it was the same for the 5 lenses at my LA Workshop that everyone shot with. Keep in mind that fast lenses like an f/0.92 will sometimes have issues on certain Leica bodies as the bodies are sometimes out of alignment for fast lenses. You say your Voigt and Zeiss glass are fine but what are the apertures of those lenses? If the front focusing is an issue (and I HATE any kind of misfocus) you can either send it back for warranty repair, refund or maybe have another shop/repair person adjust it. I hate it when lenses do not focus correctly and my old Leica Noctilux 0.95 was awful in this area. Never focused right and had to go to repair 3 times. I have had two 50 Lux ASPH's that didnt focus right. The issue is not just with SLR Magic, Leica has the problem as well mainly due to the fact that some Bodies go out of alignment just a little and when they do it can cause havoc with fast glass.

Now I have no idea if it is your lens or body but just stating possibilities. Also, my lens was sharper than my Leica Noctilux when focus was nailed. But keep in mind I resize and add slight sharpening to my images to make them pop (do this with all photos of mine). Last time I used my lens was when I shot it with the Monochrom in Berlin, and again, no issues.

Good luck with the lens and let me know how it goes."

It's good to know he has had some good experiences with the lens but other lenses have given him trouble as well.

 

[Brian S]

The focus on your camera is fine with two fast lenses. The infinity focus with your SLRMagic lens is good. The close-up focus is way off, not just a little off. I think the focal length is off, a second possibility is one suggested by Stephen: the weight of the lens makes the focus unstable, the lens does not stay perpendicular to the camera, and pushes against the RF Cam of the lens.

To test this second possibility: focus on something a few feet away first supporting the weight of the lens- then let the lens go, support only by the camera. If the image shifts in the RF, it "wobbled" and interferes with correct focus. My experience with this is limited to a Wartime Zeiss Sonnar with a worn helical, and some worn Russian lenses. I made a sleeve for the wartime sonnar to keep it from wobbling. In the case of the SLRMagic lens- not sure what to do to correct this problem.

 

[StephenPatterson]

With my third Hyperprime (the previous two both lasted less than one day) I found that the rangefinder calibration had been done with the lens completely unsupported in the mount. I had to be very cautious when focusing, as supporting the weight of the lens in my hand would cause the rangefinder patch to move a significant amount. How significant? At 3 meters I could focus on a person's eye and by simply supporting the lens cause the eye to move completely outside the rangefinder patch. I was NOT happy when I discovered this.

 

[D&A]

Stephen,

If the shear weight of the lens causes the position of the cam to move, then short of redesigning the glass (elements), I would assume barrel and compontent material might have to be changed. The weight of the glass itself must be significant but whether some aluminum or light weight alloy would help in this regard is hard to say.

This doesn't sound like the only issue with the lens and certainly QC needs to be addressed, but reduction of weight (not so much size) might be a serious issue in affecting focus from whats been described.

Dave (D&A)

 

[StephenPatterson]

If the shear weight of the lens causes the position of the cam to move, then short of redesigning the glass (elements), I would assume barrel and compontent material might have to be changed. The weight of the glass itself must be significant but whether some aluminum or light weight alloy would help in this regard is hard to say.

Dave (D&A)

The problem is not just the extreme weight of the Hyperprime (nearly 1kg) but the fact that a significant portion of that weight is at the front of the lens. Just like in aviation when we would calculate a weight and balance before takeoff it isn't just the total weight, but the moment (i.e. weight x the arm or distance).

The Hyperprime is both longer and heavier than the Noctilux 0.95, and I am not convinced that the Leica M mount is designed to handle the stress caused by having such a heavy unsupported lens attached without affecting the calibration of the mount itself, possibly causing focus issues with other lenses. Over time it might even damage the mount itself.

 

[Vivek]

It is fascinating to read about all the potential problems while ~50 year old Canon 50/0.95 lenses are still going strong and very usable.

 

[D&A]

The problem is not just the extreme weight of the Hyperprime (nearly 1kg) but the fact that a significant portion of that weight is at the front of the lens. Just like in aviation when we would calculate a weight and balance before takeoff it isn't just the total weight, but the moment (i.e. weight x the arm or distance).

The Hyperprime is both longer and heavier than the Noctilux 0.95, and I am not convinced that the Leica M mount is designed to handle the stress caused by having such a heavy unsupported lens attached without affecting the calibration of the mount itself, possibly causing focus issues with other lenses. Over time it might even damage the mount itself.

Hi Stephen,

Very much appreciate your the feedback on the lens. I understand your description of the lens being front heavy and all associated issues with regards to focusing and the cameras mount. It's just an asumption on my part, but I would suspect if the overall weight of the lens could be reduced, even if the ratio of weight front to back (of the lens) remains the same, this might be the easiest approach for the manufacturer to implement in order to address some of these issues. Combine that with better QC before each one leave the factory and at least its a start. I'm sure there is a lot of investment poured into the development this lens and obvious from a optical standpoint, it has a lot of potential.

Dave (D&A)

 

[anthonysemone]

Even if I could afford it, it'd be a cold day in hell before I bought it!! LOCTITE??? Good grief. Blue Loctite? Yuk. Has this company changed its policy with respect to refunds?? Just askin.... (and saying too)

excellent thread btw; kudos to Stephen

 

[StephenPatterson]

Hi Stephen,

Very much appreciate your the feedback on the lens. I understand your description of the lens being front heavy and all associated issues with regards to focusing and the cameras mount. It's just an asumption on my part, but I would suspect if the overall weight of the lens could be reduced, even if the ratio of weight front to back (of the lens) remains the same, this might be the easiest approach for the manufacturer to implement in order to address some of these issues. Combine that with better QC before each one leave the factory and at least its a start. I'm sure there is a lot of investment poured into the development this lens and obvious from a optical standpoint, it has a lot of potential.

Dave (D&A)

Hi Dave,

As Ashwin, Steve Huff and other users have pointed out there is some very good glass inside the Hyperprime. You cannot build a 50/0.92 lens with crap elements and get the sort of results we have seen. I believe the problems are twofold:

1. To save money SLR Magic have designed the Hyperprime without any aspherical elements or floating lens groups (also referred to as a floating lens element or FLE). The lack of aspherical lenses within causes the entire lens to be larger and heavier, and I believe the lack of a floating lens group is the primary reason so many people are experiencing focus issues, especially at close range. The Hyperprime is made up of twelve spherical lenses. For comparison the Leica Noctilux 0.95 is made up of eight lenses, six spherical and two aspherical, which comprise a floating lens element.

2. In order to properly house the twelve elements of the Hyperprime lens would in my opinion require a package substantially larger and heavier than the one now being offered by SLR Magic. Something on the order of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L for a size comparison. It would also need to be designed with a tripod mount on the lens. I don't believe this is a viable option from both a cost and a marketing perspective.

The Hyperprime is an incarnation of that old engineering proverb, "Good, Fast, Cheap; pick any two". As much as we would all like to have a $4000 or even $5000 lens as good as a Noctilux 0.95 with no mechanical or focus issues the reality is that it's probably an impossible task. Even SLR Magic probably realize that this experiment is now over, as they have no control over the prices charged by their suppliers for the exotic glass which is required to make the Hyperprime function at all. With no volume orders and numerous delays I believe the suppliers have all raised prices significantly, which is why SLR Magic was forced to raise their price even before the lens was released.

 

[Brian S]

I wonder if the flexing of the lens on the camera is due to the helical tolerances of the lens being too loose. Just a guess, I've seen it in some Russian lenses. Heavy grease used to hold things tight rather than better machining for all of them. Some lenses- smooth as butter, accurate across range. Most are "good enough", some play in the action. Others- part them out. I have a couple of Jupiter-3's that are as good as any Zeiss lens. And some that were awful, new-old-stock lenses that I parted out.

Manufacturing tolerances and quality control seem to be lacking with SLRMagic lenses. I'm wondering if those shown at Steve Huff's workshop were simply better made, and done so to show off the lens. Those made after orders were in- not as much care taken.

 

[cicada]

Hi,

As an owner of an SLR Magic FT0.95, I'd like to add my experiences.
First of all, as I'm using it with a SonY NEX-7, I'm not experiencing any focus -shift problems. Nor has anything dropped off and I can't see any 'debris' inside the lens. The focus is smooth and the aperture ring is just right.
All good so far.
However, in use, I'm finding it somewhat soft at the critical full aperture.
From f2 onwards, it performs about as well as my Zeiss 50mm f2 planar a very fine little lens.
On the following flickr site:

Zeiss Planar 2/50ZM compared with SLR Magic Hyperprime T0.95 - a set on Flickr

I've set out more comments concerning my usage of this lens including a comparison with the Zeiss 50. I've also tested it along with the SLR Magic F0.95 budget version and a Nikon 50mm, but I haven't put the results of these tests up on flickr.
In conclusion, assuming that normally these SLR T0.95 lenses can more or less at full aperture, deliver performance equal to a Leitz Noctilux, then either my lens isn't performing as well as it should, or my assumptions about how these lenses should perform are unrealistic.
Anyway, have a look at the test results and those who have experience with both lenses ( and the Zeiss 50), may be able to add some helpful comments.

 

[milesab]

Hi, Thank you for your help. I have agreed with Andrew to send my lens back and have it adjusted. I have ordered a spyderlenscal (which is the same device that SLR Magic use in their test shots). I will take some photos with the spyderlenscal at different apertures, send the photos to SLR MAgic and then send the lens back.

 

[StephenPatterson]

Hi, Thank you for your help. I have agreed with Andrew to send my lens back and have it adjusted. I have ordered a spyderlenscal (which is the same device that SLR Magic use in their test shots). I will take some photos with the spyderlenscal at different apertures, send the photos to SLR MAgic and then send the lens back.

Yes, I did the same thing before receiving my first Hyperprime from Andrew, as did Dave Grady and several of the other early adopters to show exactly how our rangefinders were calibrated. In the end all of our work didn't help us receive properly calibrated lenses.

For anyone who is not familiar with the Spyder LensCal it is a $70 lens focus target designed to be used to adjust focus at home with autofocus lenses. I cannot imagine that you would see them in use at Zeiss or Leica.

 

[milesab]

AS SLR Magic use the Spyderlenscal I have also bought one now to see correctly the issue with the lens. See below:

This is the link to the Flickr page to see a close up.

SLR Magic Hyperprime 50mm f0.95 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

The focus shift is quite apparent and the zero mark isn't even in focus. I have arranged to send it back for an adjustment.