kanzlr
Hexaneur
as long as the matte screen is properly calibrated, yes
but it is not a matter of pixel peeping. even on screen I can see that the wrong thing is sharp. The problem is not that the subject is slightly less sharp, but the ear is sharp where I focused on the eye
anyhow, I have to post a few photos I did to test the taped 50/2...fabulous even wide open!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
as long as the matte screen is properly calibrated, yes
but it is not a matter of pixel peeping. even on screen I can see that the wrong thing is sharp. The problem is not that the subject is slightly less sharp, but the ear is sharp where I focused on the eye
anyhow, I have to post a few photos I did to test the taped 50/2...fabulous even wide open!
I was refering more to using the live view function of the Nikon ... I scoffed at the idea until I tried it ... it's incredibly precise! But for tripod shooting of course ... though it does become an extremely accurate method of checking actual focus.
They need to add this feature to the next incarnation of the digital M!
kanzlr
Hexaneur
see, live view is useful, yes. thats why manual lenses work well on m4/3
but on the D700 I had a magnifying ocular and installed the excellent Canon Ec-B matte screen (modified to fit the Nikon). THAT feels right. Now if you could strip the camera of the AF, the sealing, the massive body, whatever...
but on the D700 I had a magnifying ocular and installed the excellent Canon Ec-B matte screen (modified to fit the Nikon). THAT feels right. Now if you could strip the camera of the AF, the sealing, the massive body, whatever...
peter_n
Veteran
I used a UC Hexanon 35 on an M7 and MP with a Marumi adapter and no problems. If the adapter is good you'll be OK.
ampguy
Veteran
hi
hi
Could you explain your focus testing setup? I'm not doubting it, it's just that when I do these tests, they take the better part of an afternoon to absolutely determine +/- 1.0 cm level differences, and I'm wondering if I can glean some tricks from your setup.
Thanks.
hi
Could you explain your focus testing setup? I'm not doubting it, it's just that when I do these tests, they take the better part of an afternoon to absolutely determine +/- 1.0 cm level differences, and I'm wondering if I can glean some tricks from your setup.
Thanks.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
sure. First, I did not intend to test them at all. I just noticed when shooting
It was consistent enough to warrant investigation. I just shot things easy to focus on (black marks on a stone, etc.) and then I went home, sat the camera on a tripod, mounted the magnifier ocular, and used a ruler. always tried to focus on a specific number, and the 50/2 for example was always approx 1cm off, while the rokkor, which I also tried to verify the test, focused spot on.
It was consistent enough to warrant investigation. I just shot things easy to focus on (black marks on a stone, etc.) and then I went home, sat the camera on a tripod, mounted the magnifier ocular, and used a ruler. always tried to focus on a specific number, and the 50/2 for example was always approx 1cm off, while the rokkor, which I also tried to verify the test, focused spot on.
ampguy
Veteran
ok
ok
what angle is the ruler to the sensor in these tests? what distance is the subject to the sensor, what apertures used?
Thanks!
ok
what angle is the ruler to the sensor in these tests? what distance is the subject to the sensor, what apertures used?
Thanks!
sure. First, I did not intend to test them at all. I just noticed when shooting
It was consistent enough to warrant investigation. I just shot things easy to focus on (black marks on a stone, etc.) and then I went home, sat the camera on a tripod, mounted the magnifier ocular, and used a ruler. always tried to focus on a specific number, and the 50/2 for example was always approx 1cm off, while the rokkor, which I also tried to verify the test, focused spot on.
aizan
Veteran
lenses (and bodies) often need to be adjusted to focus accurately, and rangefinders are no different. have your lenses adjusted properly and enjoy them!
kanzlr
Hexaneur
Approx 1m and 30°
But it was really obvious. If you don't notice it I everyday shooting, your lenses are most likely absolutely fine.
But it was really obvious. If you don't notice it I everyday shooting, your lenses are most likely absolutely fine.
ampguy
Veteran
ok
ok
If I'm understanding correctly, and you're reading the numbers off the angled ruler - the hypotenuse, then those 1.0cm distances, may be more like 8.5mm distances from the sensor to number. Does this make sense?
ok
If I'm understanding correctly, and you're reading the numbers off the angled ruler - the hypotenuse, then those 1.0cm distances, may be more like 8.5mm distances from the sensor to number. Does this make sense?
ferider
Veteran
Gone are the times when 1/3rd | 2/3rd focus was desired .....
ampguy
Veteran
depends
depends
sometimes closest focus works well:
depends
sometimes closest focus works well:
Gone are the times when 1/3rd | 2/3rd focus was desired .....
stephan_cautaerts
Member
No focusing issues here, not with the M-hexanon 90/2.8, nor the M-hexanon 35/2.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
The problem lies in the placement of the optical cell, which seems to anticipate bowing of film in a deep (front to back) film gate. It has nothing to do with the RF cam, movement rate, etc. You're barking up the wrong tree.
It is corrected by changing the collimation of the lens by adjusting the shims that sit between the optical unit and the lens barrel. That's it. I had to do that with every M-Hexanon I had - as well as my 75 Summilux and 90 Summicron. This requires machining a new shim that is 0.02 to 0.04mm thicker,* except in the case of the 50mm, where you can adjust the focusing cell collimation with screws accessible under the focusing ring (just like an SLR lens - but you must then adjust the RF cam to match). What you suggest - changing the effective cam position - just introduces a new error to correct an old one.
*By the way, this is the same range of tolerances Puts describes older Leica lenses having in comparison to the ideal M8/M9 plane - which should explain a lot.
Changing the collimation (and it must be done to a neutral reference plane) does not change the performance on the Hexar RF. The Hexar can be readjusted to compensate, if desired, but the Leica/Hexar combinations make no difference on film. You can cruise over to my site and see the list of things people have reported as working fine in terms of Leica, Canon, Nikon, and Soviet lenses - and that is borne out by the mathematics of depth of focus at the film plane. The M8 is very, very intolerant of anything.
DAG and John Van Stelten can do this. Van Stelten will get it done a lot quicker. And he is not afraid of the Loctite that Konica uses to prevent anything from ever, ever accidentally loosening up.
It is corrected by changing the collimation of the lens by adjusting the shims that sit between the optical unit and the lens barrel. That's it. I had to do that with every M-Hexanon I had - as well as my 75 Summilux and 90 Summicron. This requires machining a new shim that is 0.02 to 0.04mm thicker,* except in the case of the 50mm, where you can adjust the focusing cell collimation with screws accessible under the focusing ring (just like an SLR lens - but you must then adjust the RF cam to match). What you suggest - changing the effective cam position - just introduces a new error to correct an old one.
*By the way, this is the same range of tolerances Puts describes older Leica lenses having in comparison to the ideal M8/M9 plane - which should explain a lot.
Changing the collimation (and it must be done to a neutral reference plane) does not change the performance on the Hexar RF. The Hexar can be readjusted to compensate, if desired, but the Leica/Hexar combinations make no difference on film. You can cruise over to my site and see the list of things people have reported as working fine in terms of Leica, Canon, Nikon, and Soviet lenses - and that is borne out by the mathematics of depth of focus at the film plane. The M8 is very, very intolerant of anything.
DAG and John Van Stelten can do this. Van Stelten will get it done a lot quicker. And he is not afraid of the Loctite that Konica uses to prevent anything from ever, ever accidentally loosening up.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
No need to reshim a 50. The focus adjustment is under the focusing ring and is adjustable by loosening some setscrews (well, it's not quite that easy, but someone who could adjust a Nikon SLR lens could do it). But since this also changes the RF cam position, you need to be in a position to set that accurately. And that is not as easy as it seems - because once you un-loctite it to adjust it, it rotates and even the slightest friction against the RF roller in the camera can move the cam.
I get the sense that the high degree of adjustability of the 50 was due either to (a) a very late decision as to what the registration distance would be; (b) some production related consideration (though in practice, it requires some dexterity to change this setting); or (c) some intent to sell it set exactly like a Leica lens.
By the way, the Konica L-series screwmount lenses are all Leica spec - most of them preceded the Hexar RF.
Dante
I get the sense that the high degree of adjustability of the 50 was due either to (a) a very late decision as to what the registration distance would be; (b) some production related consideration (though in practice, it requires some dexterity to change this setting); or (c) some intent to sell it set exactly like a Leica lens.
By the way, the Konica L-series screwmount lenses are all Leica spec - most of them preceded the Hexar RF.
Dante
ferider
Veteran
For a 50, re-shimming or RF cam adjustment are the same thing.
By the way, the Konica L-series screwmount lenses are all Leica spec - most of them preceded the Hexar RF.
Not true. My own experience with the 50/2.4, and others comments on the 60/1.2 tell a different story. As said above, easy to fix by modifying the adapter, of course.
Roland.
By the way, the Konica L-series screwmount lenses are all Leica spec - most of them preceded the Hexar RF.
Not true. My own experience with the 50/2.4, and others comments on the 60/1.2 tell a different story. As said above, easy to fix by modifying the adapter, of course.
Roland.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
There are no shims in the 50. The optical unit is threaded on the outside and links to the focusing helicoid via three setscrews. Their relative positions determine collimation. The rangefinder "tube" is screwed into the back of the optical unit, not the back of the focusing mechanism. And I would beg to differ that adjusting one is the same as adjusting the other - you are throwing off both the distance scale and the RF alignment when it hits the physical infinity stop. It's about 1mm of focusing ring travel, halfway into the lobe of the infinity mark.
On the L lenses, the 60/1.2L* may be different - just as a 75 Summilux is (it took 4 trips to Leica to get that lens adjusted properly for an M8...) - but I don't think that's intentional. If your 50/2.4 is off, and that lens was developed before the RF, what would you postulate it's collimated to? Is the suggestion that Konica is somehow uniquely incapable of reverse-engineering a registration distance? It's absurd. Puts has postulated that the 50/2.4 suffers from a tube-locking issue - but in his meticulous way never noted that the lens was off.
You can go round and round and round on this - but at the end of the day, any problem you have mounting any of these lenses on anything can be resolved - the correct way - for $100-150 per lens. Well worth it, if not just for the peace of mind. What I don't understand is the obsession with DIY solutions.
Dante
On the L lenses, the 60/1.2L* may be different - just as a 75 Summilux is (it took 4 trips to Leica to get that lens adjusted properly for an M8...) - but I don't think that's intentional. If your 50/2.4 is off, and that lens was developed before the RF, what would you postulate it's collimated to? Is the suggestion that Konica is somehow uniquely incapable of reverse-engineering a registration distance? It's absurd. Puts has postulated that the 50/2.4 suffers from a tube-locking issue - but in his meticulous way never noted that the lens was off.
*Do you mean 60/1.2 or 50/1.2? The latter definitely has to be recollimated.
I've tested several samples of the 35/2 UC (which definitely followed the RF), and it was dead-on with the M8 and a Leitz adapter.
You can go round and round and round on this - but at the end of the day, any problem you have mounting any of these lenses on anything can be resolved - the correct way - for $100-150 per lens. Well worth it, if not just for the peace of mind. What I don't understand is the obsession with DIY solutions.
Dante
ampguy
Veteran
I don't think Roland's L 50/2.4 Hexanon is off at infinity, but I wished I shipped him my LTM to M adapter (generic ebay one):
These are from my M8:
gallery here
The reason why I think it focuses to infinity, with my ltm/m 50 adapter, is that with 2 M bodies, at infinity, the farthest things I could see (tree tops on mountains) lined up with that lens, but ...
With the same adapter on a known good LTM 50 lens that focuses to infinity, in images, and RF/VF with same adapter, if I put the thinnest shim I can find in the house between that adapter and lens, I cannot align up trees as far as I can see from the house, they are off in the M8 RF/VF by the slightest amount, although that paper thin shim gives me ~10cm closer focus.
These are from my M8:
gallery here
The reason why I think it focuses to infinity, with my ltm/m 50 adapter, is that with 2 M bodies, at infinity, the farthest things I could see (tree tops on mountains) lined up with that lens, but ...
With the same adapter on a known good LTM 50 lens that focuses to infinity, in images, and RF/VF with same adapter, if I put the thinnest shim I can find in the house between that adapter and lens, I cannot align up trees as far as I can see from the house, they are off in the M8 RF/VF by the slightest amount, although that paper thin shim gives me ~10cm closer focus.
Last edited:
kanzlr
Hexaneur
hi Dante,
thanks a lot for the information, that makes a LOT of sense!
I am not obsessed with DIY solutions at all. Honestly, I would prefer to have it done by a professional. But I couldn't find one in Europe who does this. All I asked said no. So I sent the 90 to DAG, and if I have no success with DIY the 50 will go to DAG or focal point (didn't now them, thanks!).
thanks a lot for the information, that makes a LOT of sense!
I am not obsessed with DIY solutions at all. Honestly, I would prefer to have it done by a professional. But I couldn't find one in Europe who does this. All I asked said no. So I sent the 90 to DAG, and if I have no success with DIY the 50 will go to DAG or focal point (didn't now them, thanks!).
kanzlr
Hexaneur
Hi again,
a little update: I got the 0.05mm copper foil (self adhesive). After a bit of experimentation I settled with two sheets of these sticked to the focusing chamber (where it has contact with the rangefinder actuator).
So far it seems to work as desired. Focus seems to be spot on near and far, even wide open. Will post some shots later as well as shots of the chamber.
Also, this seems to make sense because another member noted that his lens had two 0.1mm shims inside. Removing one made it focus perfectly on his M. well, shimming and adding the same amount (2x0.05=0.1) to the chamber are basically the same thing, isn't it?
no matter what, the result is pleasing. Mr. Van Stelten would adjust the lens, but the costs of shipping + possible taxes + return shipping + more taxes + the cost of adjustment itself are as much as I paid for that excellent lens.
Still have to think about having it properly adjusted, but as of now I am happy.
a little update: I got the 0.05mm copper foil (self adhesive). After a bit of experimentation I settled with two sheets of these sticked to the focusing chamber (where it has contact with the rangefinder actuator).
So far it seems to work as desired. Focus seems to be spot on near and far, even wide open. Will post some shots later as well as shots of the chamber.
Also, this seems to make sense because another member noted that his lens had two 0.1mm shims inside. Removing one made it focus perfectly on his M. well, shimming and adding the same amount (2x0.05=0.1) to the chamber are basically the same thing, isn't it?
no matter what, the result is pleasing. Mr. Van Stelten would adjust the lens, but the costs of shipping + possible taxes + return shipping + more taxes + the cost of adjustment itself are as much as I paid for that excellent lens.
Still have to think about having it properly adjusted, but as of now I am happy.
Last edited: