The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

SLR Magic HyperPrime LM 50mm T0.95 Review

Status
Not open for further replies.

Double Negative

Not Available
The lenses circulated at the workshop were all freshly tuned as I understand it... As we know, these things require ultra precise alignment. Andrew was worried about what all the shipping may have done to the lens I received and appears his fears may have been well-founded. I have no doubt the lens performs even better when it's in spec.

There are only six in the world, currently - so mine was probably at the workshop before heading north to Seattle and finally over to me. :(

I would really like to get a cleaned up copy to re-test and perform the shoot-out with so as to give the HyperPrime a fair shake... I think I'll send Andrew a reminder.
 

ashwinrao1

Active member
I wonder who used it in Seattle, LOL, as I didn't ever try out a test sample other than at the workshop. I have my own new copy now in Stealth Black (lettering's present but barely visible), and it's fantastic. I too like the "character" of the lens, as character comes in handy often compared to bland bokeh....I believe that Andrew has readied about 30-50 now, but they are fine tuning focus, and he and I had long talks about where and how to optimize focus to behave ona majority of bodies...

I think that Andrew has been very busy. I have also suggested unique serial numbers, as my copy doesn't have one, nor do the test models (that I am aware of).
 

Double Negative

Not Available
Think of who's based in Seattle... Not sure if I should say exactly who it is, but we all know the site. ;)

Yes, the exact tuning of the lens went through a bit of back-n-forth but should be mostly straightened out now (or pretty close anyway).

Andrew's been swamped and working 17-18 hour days lately. It's all good. I just want to represent the lens accurately and fairly.

Nice shots! I've seen them before... More representative of what I'm thinking this lens is capable of.
 

ashwinrao1

Active member
Yeah, I figured. I hadn't seen a review up on their site, but given that all of their test shots take place in and around Seattle, I had wondering if that gang had sampled and reviewed it....
 

zombii

New member
Good set Ashwin. That gives a much better idea of what to expect. I like some of the bokeh and others not so much. How many of your M9 shots were wide open? Some appear to be stopped down. It also appears that it gets a bit softer up close and wide open even at the point of focus. Would you agree with that? Do you still like the focus ring on your production version?

Just was able to get into Michael's page. Looking at the size comparison, it looks huge! I knew it was big but wow! Clearly, I'm going to have to do a shootout between it and my f1 Noct when I get the SLR Magic. I may have to start lifting weights. ;-)
 

jonoslack

Active member
I heard stories about the guy building one of these lenses in a hotel room . . . which does make one wonder a little about QA.
 

ashwinrao1

Active member
Hui Jono, I am betting that this is a bit of exageration. I was present at the time that said rumors got started. The lenses came built, but, at the time of their debut at Steve's workshop, SLR magic was quite concerned about getting things right. Their bayonet mount was a bit off and didn't actually mount on film M's or M8's (did fine on M9's), and so he was swapping out bayonet mounts and doing some fine tuning adjustments. But no, the lenses were already built. We were joking that SLR Magic kept bringing in more and more copies.

I have spoken with Andrew from SLR Magic extensively. From what I can tell, he's OBSESSED with getting the details and QC right on this. He's discovered a bunch of issues inherent to using fast lenses on the present RF system, and how many lenses present focussing challenges that vary from focal length to focal lengh. These "errors" become more apparent, depending on lens design and speed, I believe.
 

ashwinrao1

Active member
Thanks, Zombii, and yes, the lens is HUGE! 200 g more than the Noct f0.95, which is big as is....start pumping iron LOL
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I heard stories about the guy building one of these lenses in a hotel room . . . which does make one wonder a little about QA.
That would be alright by me but the lack of data ( i can do the measurements in my bathroom, fwiw) on the lens is more worrying to me.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hui Jono, I am betting that this is a bit of exageration. I was present at the time that said rumors got started. The lenses came built, but, at the time of their debut at Steve's workshop, SLR magic was quite concerned about getting things right. Their bayonet mount was a bit off and didn't actually mount on film M's or M8's (did fine on M9's), and so he was swapping out bayonet mounts and doing some fine tuning adjustments. But no, the lenses were already built. We were joking that SLR Magic kept bringing in more and more copies.

I have spoken with Andrew from SLR Magic extensively. From what I can tell, he's OBSESSED with getting the details and QC right on this. He's discovered a bunch of issues inherent to using fast lenses on the present RF system, and how many lenses present focussing challenges that vary from focal length to focal lengh. These "errors" become more apparent, depending on lens design and speed, I believe.
Fair do's Ashwin - I can understand that . . . . and that he's both knowledgeable and capable, but how can he order the different types of glass needed for such a design? How can he do the calibration properly? How can he have refined the design by building a number of prototypes and correcting them? it just seems too good to be true to me.

Maybe I'm just being a grumpy old man, but it seems to me that building something as fast as a ferrari, which looks like a ferrari (well nearly) doesn't make it a ferrari!
 

ashwinrao1

Active member
I am hoping that SLR Magic posts its MTF charts and data soon. I think they are careful when and what to disclose, as I have seen some promising numbers, but nothing official....
 

D&A

Well-known member
I've notice the same deal...more harsh bokeh and more CA, but it may be subject matter shot and user identifiable error. The version(s) that I shot at Huff's workshop in LA were amazing, and I need to use my production copy more to fully ascertain such matters...but it's been something I have been wondering about...
Ashwin! You hit the nail on the head. The images you (and possibly others like Steve) posted from the workshop with this lens, almost to an image, were marketly different than images being posted with the samples now. Bokeh was smoother for the most part with a core central sharpness that was clearly evident. More recent images have the bokeh often exhibiting a wild side...almost reminds me of the 60mm f1.2 Hex. I don't think the differences I am seeing are simply different subjects adn backgrounds. Its something more and the actual fingerprint of the lens looks different too. Other than central sharpness, less of a 0.95 Noct and in some way a bit leaning towards the 50mm f1.2 Nokton...but not quite. One thing I would personally like is when purchasing such a lens, to know what to expect from the sample that is delivered and there seems to be now a bit of uncertainty. I do hope it all gets sorted out.

Dave (D&A)
 

ashwinrao1

Active member
I do feel that the lens takes on different characters based on focused difference. Here are a few examples, and I think it may be hard to distinguish my present copy, from the prior copy used at the Huff workshop:

Close up (Bokeh smoother):




A couple of meters away, background gets a bit more active, which I really dig for this shot:


About the same distance, but with a more contrasty background:


Night shot (this is where the image looks most like what I recall)



And yet here, the image OOF looks nervous:



These are all from my present copy....


Compared to my prior copy used at Huff's shop:



 

ashwinrao1

Active member
Fair do's Ashwin - I can understand that . . . . and that he's both knowledgeable and capable, but how can he order the different types of glass needed for such a design? How can he do the calibration properly? How can he have refined the design by building a number of prototypes and correcting them? it just seems too good to be true to me.

Maybe I'm just being a grumpy old man, but it seems to me that building something as fast as a ferrari, which looks like a ferrari (well nearly) doesn't make it a ferrari!
Not sure how it all works, but I suspect that there's a bit of funding via Venture Capital at play? They are probably not giving all of their design secrets away, though I suspect that they made decent $ on selling their cheaper products, to fund this project.... For me, ultimately why I see coming from the lens appears (in most instances, but certainly not all) to my eye, but I do feel that the lens is a bit schizophrenic, as I tried to demonstrate in the images above....from 2 copies of the lens...both exhibiting different character based on focus and activity of the background...

Hope all's well Jono. I have to get back to editing your MM photos, though I've already ordered Henri for myself;)
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I do feel that the lens takes on different characters based on focused difference.
That is the case with most super fast lenses. Not only the distance but the quality of the light affects the performance even more dramatically. Some of the nicer images I saw apparently used a ND filter and were shot in contrasty light. What is the point of claiming a f/0.92 lens if it can only deliver something decent in strong light?

This is why they ought to produce and publish the lens data and not rely on a few web postings as the advertisement. However, it seems to be working well for them. So, they should continue doing what works (for them). :)
 

Double Negative

Not Available
Sounds like Ashwin and I have had a lot of the same conversations with Andrew. :)

He's knowledgeable and as said, determined to get things right.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Ashwin, after re-examining both you re-posted images "above" from both the samples you shot with and also DN's images from his sample, my gut feeling is at this point two possible situations are at play. The lens does appear to be bit schizophrenic as you say, especially with regard to the bokeh...running the gamut from near buttery smooth to a fair dose of nervousness. Agreed...quality of light and focusing distance can often play a role and often times that bit of jitteriness in the OOF areas, does lens lend some character to the image. I've only shot with the Leica 0.95 for a brief time, but I believe its characteristics in this regard are more tame.

Yet with all that said, I still "almost" see two fairly different types of the hyper-prime lens. The one(s) used at the workshop and the one you (Ashwin) and especially DN have most recently shot with. It's not just the nervous background, it's something else and it's hard to put my finger on it. Maybe it is simply luck of the draw what subject/background/lighting each image was shot with but I'm not convinced of that yet. Maybe it's simply sample to sample variation and that with these pre-production samples, the lens has to precisely adjusted to achieve its intended look and performance. If during their travels, calibration or something else thrown off, that might explain it. The alternative is partial inconsistency in the glass itself...or maybe a combination of both. I think with a lens like this, most would feel more confident, if they could be assured each sample is most like the next. If the look of the OOF areas changes depending on shooting circumstances, thats fine as long as one knows what he's getting when purchasing any sample.

Lens has tremendous potential if the QC and sample to sample consistency is held reasonably high. Thanks for re-posting the images and also to DN for his review.

Dave (D&A)
 

Brian S

New member
I think Steve wants an M9 Monochrome.

So do I. Thought about selling the Canon 50/0.95's. Decided to keep them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top