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!
Rob, if you're the same guy that posts on the LUF, you've shot basketball (moving targets in bad light) nearly wide open with a Noctilux and a 35/Summicron and gotten impressive results. Are you correcting for back-focus, accepting a smaller keeper-ratio, or what? Would you see an advantage in this lens over the Summicron?From the can shot it looks like it back focuses a bit wide open. That is assuming you focused on the middle can.
The sharpness at f1.4 looks to be about the same as the Noctilux at f1.
One thing I noticed is there seems to be a lot of DOF compared to other f1.4 shots I have seen from other lenses.
Robert
Yes, I am the one that shot basketball with a Noctilux. There is a technique to the follow focusing and for the net shots in particular. They don't always jump from the same spot. Your brain figures out how much to move the focus off the prefocused net before firing. In other words, I will focus on the net, use the rangefinder to fine tune the focus when they jump, but with practice, your brain and the rangefinder get in tune and you tend to get the images aligned quicker and more accurately. In coming down the floor and follow focusing, it can be hit and miss, but so can an EOS with a50mm f1.8 lens.Rob, if you're the same guy that posts on the LUF, you've shot basketball (moving targets in bad light) nearly wide open with a Noctilux and a 35/Summicron and gotten impressive results. Are you correcting for back-focus, accepting a smaller keeper-ratio, or what? Would you see an advantage in this lens over the Summicron?
I was thinking about trying another sample- but Stephen Gandy is sold out of both the MC and the SC and over at RFF he said that the factory sold out the initial run, too. So, no one will be getting a 35/1.4 Nokton Classic until at least June, IIRC. I'll just try to remember to do the focus-->lean back a degree--->shoot thing when the lens is opened up, I guess.In regards to Maggie's lens, it probably just back focuses until stopped down and we all know where that went with the 35mm Summilux. She could try some other copies of the lens, but it may not be worth the time and effort if she is happy with the results.
Maggie,Vignetting, of the M8 type seems to be very low to non-existent, so I'm leaning towards not having the mount milled. I'm afraid that the focusing problems (which are pretty darn small, when you get right down to it) would be made worse if I starting mucking around the lens with a screwdriver. Thoughts?
CAUTION!!! I am not advocating this, but merely passing on info for the brave of heart, those that like to tinker, or those who were desperate and prepared to ship things off if they screwed it up. (That be me )Thanks for the info and insight, LJ!
Dare I ask....how do you adjust the rangefinder?
Hi Scott,Maggie --
For the obsessed pixel-peepers, could you upload one or two raw files to Yousendit and share the links? You're posting resized jpegs on Flickr, so a lot has already happened to the file before we see it. Cases of most interest would be:
f/5.6 outdoors with objects at various distances;
the classic brick wall, bulletin board or wall of books at f/1.4 and tripod;
and pictures somewhat like your cattails in which there are fine details backlit such as tree branches against a medium tone sky. (at f/5.6, not at f/11, so that there is no possibility of diffraction limiting the sharpness or obscuring any CA)
If you share the raw file, it is possible, thanks to Cornerfix, to know the aperture used. Flickr's exif reading is a mixed bag. I can see your firmware level, ISO, number of shutter activations, and software used to create the Jpeg, but the shutter readout is not convincing, and the aperture and focal length are a complete mystery.
Sean is off to Florida and motorcycles, so we are probably a month away from seeing his detailed test of this lens. In the mean time, you are the expert.
thanks,
scott
Just be careful to do controlled tests with focus bracketing before drawing any conclusions about resolution, focus shift, etc. Its easy to be fooled by confounding variables.I think it probably has focus shift. If you look at the shots of your sister, the ones at f1.4 are soft, while the the f2 are nice and sharp.
Hi Scott,I'm looking at the bricks. I see why Sean insists on focus bracketing when he tests wide open. It looks to me as if the 1.4 is a little out of focus, and shows some vignetting. The 5.6 and the 8 seem sharp and evenly illuminated, but I would have guessed that there is diffraction at f/11 reducing the sharpness and contrast of the image. From the cans, it looks like there is a focus shift of as much as an inch at f/1.4, so try pulling the focus forward in tiny amounts and I bet that one will sharpen up and brighten as well. How does the best result with your brick wall work out at f/2? The can trick to check for focus shift at f/2.0 would also help to determine if you will have to focus bracket here as well.
scott
Hi Maggie,OK, here's a thought- if the lens is backfocusing, wouldn't it make sense that the middle is mushy (that was the focus point) and the corners, being farther away, should be in focus? Though f5.6 should have enough DOF to cover that range, yes?
Is this something that can be adjusted? Do I send the lens back to Cameraquest? I'm kinda getting bummed out here. (Thankfully, I can go and shoot with my lovely 50/2 Heliar Classic and it cheers me up.)
That's pretty much the conclusion I've come to at this point- I'm making photos that look like how I expected them to look, so I'm not going to worry. Thanks for the reinforcement!Hi Maggie,
I wouldn't worry until and unless you see a problem after doing very methodical testing. Semi-methodical testing is, unfortunately, the most potentially misleading of all. If your usual pictures look good to you, I wouldn't worry for now.
Cheers,
Sean