More on longitudinal color in the 70/2.5 S2 lens

[brianc1959]

Lloyd had posted some interesting new information: http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/index.html

Most of it is in the subscription site, but there is a nice image illustrating the issue on his blog.

 

[robmac]

Saw it - so much for 'devoid' of aberrations... 'Once more into the breach' I guess as they used to say.

 

[markowich]

Saw it - so much for 'devoid' of aberrations... 'Once more into the breach' I guess as they used to say.

this is very reminiscent of the initial M8 troubles with infrared contamination: leica is again surprised that one of their digital products has a serious IQ defect. and the search for a fix is on only afterwards, instead of having made appropriate design decisions beforehand. last time it was filters on the lenses for use on the M8, this time it will be software. as much as i like leica as a small company with excellent opto-mechanical know-how, one cannot deny a lack of experience in the digital arena. it seems that we pay the early-adopter tax heavily with the S2. i do believe that the S3 will be a wonderful product. leica, we do NEED an upgrade path as usual in the MF world!!!!!
peter

 

[robmac]

Lloyd's test was a bit of a worst case, but no different than anyone here would do if suspicious of a lens/body performance. The results are nasty enough that any high-end CanNikon body/lens combo showing similar results would have various forums inflamed by now.

Problem is that unlike their very resilient and forgiving/patient M user base, the tolerance with issues in the S2's snack bracket among agnostic pros (who will be the ones that determine if the S Program lives or dies outside the early adopter bubble --and thus IF there is ever any S3) will not be very robust.

Also, if you're going to tout your gear as faultless and 'devoid' of issues and thus not worth 'wasting..' $$ on software correction, you may want to be sure the self-confidence is backed up by reality.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Wow..the piling on just continues . What a distorted reporting of Lloyd s report. Let me quote a few of lloyd s comments..."there is nothing "wrong" with the Leica Summarit 70mm f2.5 ASPH". I have shared emails with Lloyd on the issue of proprietary software and the S2.

Let me share a few observations from my emails with lloyd..his comments : (1) agreed Leica s claim of a perfect lens is overstated. (2) the Leica 70mm is equal or better than any lens he has used (3)the 70mm exhibits no lateral chromatic aberrations ..the issue is Axis Chromatic aberrations (4) the 70mm summarit is better than any M lens available (5) the issue of ACA is overstated as it is common in every lens he has tested except for two F4 specialty lenses. It should be expected in a fast lens like the summarit .

He is not addressing the value of proprietary software . I would love to see a test of the Phase and HB systems as Lloyd has done it . Take a fast lens and show that you can eliminate the ACA with the software.

Lets be realistic ..Leica isn t going to develop a proprietary software product. This does not mean that they will never have a good to excellent raw conversion. I am pretty happy with the M9 file conversions in either C1 or LR3(neither proprietary) and to my eye they are pretty close(and both are pretty great). I do consider this an important issue but not because the ACA corrections aren t perfect.

 

[NotXorc]

In the interest of disclosure, I am a consumer of photographic equipment. Not a dealer, not a designer, not an engineer.

This thread began when a lens designer decided to point out some possibly less-than-favorable conclusions regarding a rival lensmaker's product - in this case, Leica. I don't think this scenario reflects positively on the poster, and is unlikely to lead to productive dialogue. Leica definitely shouldn't get a free pass, but the discussion would feel more frank if interested parties weren't the ones leading out the conversation.

 

[markowich]

Wow..the piling on just continues . What a distorted reporting of Lloyd s report. Let me quote a few of lloyd s comments..."there is nothing "wrong" with the Leica Summarit 70mm f2.5 ASPH". I have shared emails with Lloyd on the issue of proprietary software and the S2.

Let me share a few observations from my emails with lloyd..his comments : (1) agreed Leica s claim of a perfect lens is overstated. (2) the Leica 70mm is equal or better than any lens he has used (3)the 70mm exhibits no lateral chromatic aberrations ..the issue is Axis Chromatic aberrations (4) the 70mm summarit is better than any M lens available (5) the issue of ACA is overstated as it is common in every lens he has tested except for two F4 specialty lenses. It should be expected in a fast lens like the summarit .

He is not addressing the value of proprietary software . I would love to see a test of the Phase and HB systems as Lloyd has done it . Take a fast lens and show that you can eliminate the ACA with the software.

Lets be realistic ..Leica isn t going to develop a proprietary software product. This does not mean that they will never have a good to excellent raw conversion. I am pretty happy with the M9 file conversions in either C1 or LR3(neither proprietary) and to my eye they are pretty close(and both are pretty great). I do consider this an important issue but not because the ACA corrections aren t perfect.

i am not surprised that typical M-users are not unhappy with the CA performance of the S 70mm lens. some of the fast M-lenses themselves are very prone to CA, like the 21mm and 24mm LUXes. clearly the top nikons show much less CA (like the 24mm f1.4), but this is most likely due to the AA filter infront of the nikon CMOS sensors. in the final analysis i am very impressed by the HC lenses, which show -in PHOCUS- much less CA than the leicas.
i claim the LR is a burden.
peter

 

[thomas]

Roger, I think the issue is Leica in fact seems to think that no dedicated software is needed.

Either way how good the lenses are - they all need (or can take) additional software optimizing.
Even Schneider provides a so called "digital center filter" (upcoming Photoshop plugin) to correct light falloff. Either way how good the plugin is - at least they offer something.
Alpa provides the "Alpa Lens Corrector" to correct distortion for Rodenstock and Digitar lenses.
What? These top notch large format lenses show distortion??? Yes, they do - and the manufacturers do not negate it.

The S2 shows moire, purple fringing and CA. So what? Nothing particularily wrong with it (and it doesn't make the 70mm a bad lens!).
But they should offer something to correct it… actually very simple.

I wouldn't be happy with LR3 or C1 for the M9… I've seen quite some images that show color cast (wide angles).
Not Leicas fault… that's how sensors work today.
But Leica should feel responsible to offer something for accurate results. IMHO they should provide a LCC tool for the M9.

To adress your question: C1 corrects all CAs and purple fringing with my Contax lenses even in situations that are extremely prone to show abberations (heavy backlight etc.). Except with the 2.0/80 at f2.0 as the color fringing can be a bit too "glowy" wide open under extreme conditions.
OTOH I do not find the moire correction very good in C1. However they provide something that is doable (requires further Photoshoph work though… IMO) - they do not say that the problem is non-existent.

So… Leica's fault is not in what they offer (the 70mm)… it's in what they do not offer…

 

[glenerrolrd]

Peter

I am likewise not surprised by your comments but I can assure I am anything but a typical M user. (insulting again as expected).

You have a decent track record in picking up on any and all complaints about the S2 performance . My comments above were primarily quotes from lloyd . I would suggest that anyone really interested read his Lloyd s report and start with the conclusion.

Why not do the test with your Hasselblad s to show how lenses that are f2.5 or faster handle ACA (since I believe Lloyd was clear on the fact that this is an issue with faster designs) . It looked like a simple test just a ball of aluminum foil. If you feel so strongly that the HB lenses have much less CA or that the software takes it out..where are the tests . But I believe Lloyd s point was that fast lenses like the 2.5 summarit should be expected to have ACA and that its not reasonable to compare them to a 3.5 lens.

Still waiting to see any of your tests ..haven t you owned the S2 now twice ?

 

[jonoslack]

This thread began when a lens designer decided to point out some possibly less-than-favorable conclusions regarding a rival lensmaker's product - in this case, Leica.

Hi There
Can you explain that a bit more fully - I'm confused

 

[NotXorc]

Hi There
Can you explain that a bit more fully - I'm confused

Jono, I am advocating a bit more disclosure. The discussion started when a poster with a vested interest failed to openly disclose that he designs lenses which are competitors to the Leica system. Not trying to ostracize the poster or discussions which are unfavorable to Lecia.

After Lloyd's review, I feel like I know the S2 gestalt as well as possible without some field time with the instrument. Like any product it has some room for improvement, but if anything, I'm more impressed with the optical system than before. Hope that helps! :lecture:

 

[jonoslack]

Jono, I am advocating a bit more disclosure. The discussion started when a poster with a vested interest failed to openly disclose that he designs lenses which are competitors to the Leica system. Not trying to ostracize the poster or discussions which are unfavorable to Lecia.

After Lloyd's review, I feel like I know the S2 gestalt as well as possible without some field time with the instrument. Like any product it has some room for improvement, but if anything, I'm more impressed with the optical system than before. Hope that helps! :lecture:

Thank you - that seems pretty clear!
IMHO There is an unfortunate side effect to pay sites in that the remarks can be reported i a pretty lop-sided way, and unless you pay you can't really check it out.

 

[stephengilbert]

"The discussion started when a poster with a vested interest failed to openly disclose that he designs lenses which are competitors to the Leica system."

Isn't this irrelevant? The original post was a link to someone else's test. It didn't disparage Leica or its lenses. It is all but certain that someone would have posted that link sooner or later. Would that have changed anything?

 

[jonoslack]

"The discussion started when a poster with a vested interest failed to openly disclose that he designs lenses which are competitors to the Leica system."

Isn't this irrelevant? The original post was a link to someone else's test. It didn't disparage Leica or its lenses. It is all but certain that someone would have posted that link sooner or later. Would that have changed anything?

One thing is for sure - any discussion of the S2 around here always ends in tears!

 

[NotXorc]

Isn't this irrelevant? The original post was a link to someone else's test. It didn't disparage Leica or its lenses. It is all but certain that someone would have posted that link sooner or later. Would that have changed anything?

True; it probably is irrelevant. Just my frustration about getting sucked into yet another thread about the S2.
Over and . . . . . . . out.

 

[robmac]

While the OP is the designer of the Coastal Optics 60 Macro (drool), it in no way shape or form competes with any S lens. It's solely used by Lloyd as one example of a very well corrected lens. Trust me, had the Leica been CA-free you can be certain any number of folks would happily have posted the link. It really doesn't matter (as was said earlier) who put the link up, it only matters how objective the tester was -in this case very.

The issue isn't beating on the S2 for }#% and giggles, or that an S2 lens shows CA. The issue some have, self included, is that Leica takes great pains to take childish public digs at their well-established competitors (jabs you don't see them take in turn) in the sector they JUST entered (after how many years out of the DSLR game?) about how their new lenses are peerless, 'devoid of ___', etc., with no need to 'lower' themselves to software correction when the truth plainly says otherwise. Good, yes. Great maybe, yes. Peerless/devoid of issue and thus not needing any 'wasted' $$ in post-capture correction? Nope.

If you're going to brag loudly about your, uh, relative 'manhood' vs your teammates/fans, the locker room evidence had better back it up....

Want to show your products ace the competition? Market of course, but cut the childish/unprofessional digs at the Swedes & Danes and let your product carry it's own bragging rights. Let the sales numbers, RAW image evidence and buyer testimonials say it for you. If your right, the market will make it self-evident. Show first, brag later, or pay the price in credibility and be ready to cowboy-up to take the critique accordingly.

Manufacturer's can brag all they want about their gear, but the rubber hits the road at the buyer's wallets. If the S2 'formula' (tech, lenses, form factor, market position, etc., etc) is the end-all-be-all Solms positions it as (they really do go that step too far sometimes) and many feel it is or could be, it will quickly become evident if theory is reality or not.

Jono, I am advocating a bit more disclosure. The discussion started when a poster with a vested interest failed to openly disclose that he designs lenses which are competitors to the Leica system. Not trying to ostracize the poster or discussions which are unfavorable to Lecia.

After Lloyd's review, I feel like I know the S2 gestalt as well as possible without some field time with the instrument. Like any product it has some room for improvement, but if anything, I'm more impressed with the optical system than before. Hope that helps! :lecture:

 

[glenerrolrd]

Rob

It doesn t take much convincing for most forum participants to believe that Leica tends to become quite arrogant when discussing their lenses. But that has little to do with Lloyd s testing unless the intent was to pull out the ACA issue and stick it in someones face. To do so and to leave out the positive findings and Lloyd s conclusion that the Leica glass is nothing short of great..if not perfect.....seems ingenuous.

IMHO the only thing wrong with the S2 glass is that its not available.

This is of course not true of many other aspects of the S2 offering which may make having great design and great glass less relevant.

Of course but what would I know I am only a typical M user .

Roger

 

[robmac]

Hey Roger,

If folks would actually read Lloyd's (excellent and well worthwhile) reviews vs. just xth-hand snippets from them, it would be obvious he likes a lot of aspects about the S2, including (or especially) the resolving power and construction of the the glass (as you'd expect from a modern Leica lens). That said he also doesn't shy away from showing the warts. I don't agree with all of Lloyd's conclusions on any given lens/body, but that doesn't take way from the pains he goes to show be as fair and 'real life' as possible.

I view Peter's views on the S2 as a former owner no different than an owner who thought it walked on water and posted those views whenever he felt like it. Hell, the more varied owner feedback I could see, the more comfortable I'd be that it's actually going to succeed in the market, and thus spawn an S3, etc., as it would mean it's getting into more and more studio safes/owner bags (*).

Cheers

Rob

(*) Before a reader of this post is tempted to pull that tired ".... too busy shooting with it to talk about it on the web" chestnut out of the hat, stop and think first...

 

[markowich]

Peter

I am likewise not surprised by your comments but I can assure I am anything but a typical M user. (insulting again as expected).

You have a decent track record in picking up on any and all complaints about the S2 performance . My comments above were primarily quotes from lloyd . I would suggest that anyone really interested read his Lloyd s report and start with the conclusion.

Why not do the test with your Hasselblad s to show how lenses that are f2.5 or faster handle ACA (since I believe Lloyd was clear on the fact that this is an issue with faster designs) . It looked like a simple test just a ball of aluminum foil. If you feel so strongly that the HB lenses have much less CA or that the software takes it out..where are the tests . But I believe Lloyd s point was that fast lenses like the 2.5 summarit should be expected to have ACA and that its not reasonable to compare them to a 3.5 lens.

Still waiting to see any of your tests ..haven t you owned the S2 now twice ?

roger,
sorry, but i did not intend to say that you are a typical M user....you got that all wrong. i wanted to point out that leica has a track record in producing lens/sensor design with CA problems and that their customers have consistently ignored this issue (see threads over in the M9 forum about the 24mm LUX etc).
i have posted shots here done with the HC 100mm f2.2 which shows CA wide open when developed in PHOCUS but the issue goes away at f3.8-f4. this is not the case with the 70mm Summarit + LR 3 combo.
my main criticism refers to leica seeing issues too late and to their (and their fanboys) arrogance implying perfection of their optical designs.
other than that i do like the S2 and we took it along on the trip to israel now to check it in real life situations.
peter

 

[glenerrolrd]

Peter

My issue with your post and several others ..is that (1)its not a balanced view of anything(thats my opinion) (2) its taken out of context to the extent that its different from the reviewers conclusions. (this is a fact).

The post was about Lloyd s review and you selectively extracted some of his tests to support the same arguments you have been making for months.

(1)Leica is arrogant (and it transcends to the Leica Fan Boys).

(2) The S2 glass isn t perfect.

(3) The available software provides little if any support for lens aberrations.

But you left out the part about Lloyd saying ....there is nothing wrong with the lens , he has never seen anything better and doubts that anyone can make a better lens and on balance he thinks Leica got the lenses right.

I apologize for repeating myself .

Roger

roger,
sorry, but i did not intend to say that you are a typical M user....you got that all wrong. i wanted to point out that leica has a track record in producing lens/sensor design with CA problems and that their customers have consistently ignored this issue (see threads over in the M9 forum about the 24mm LUX etc).
i have posted shots here done with the HC 100mm f2.2 which shows CA wide open when developed in PHOCUS but the issue goes away at f3.8-f4. this is not the case with the 70mm Summarit + LR 3 combo.
my main criticism refers to leica seeing issues too late and to their (and their fanboys) arrogance implying perfection of their optical designs.
other than that i do like the S2 and we took it along on the trip to israel now to check it in real life situations.
peter