thegman
Veteran
In the end I've gone for the LTM version, it's less expensive with the finder, M adaptor and shipping than just the M lens, so I've ordered one from a shop in Hong Kong. I may try that filter trick depending on how happy I am with the filterless results.
gliderbee
Well-known
I'm interested in this, but the picture is not showing; can I see it somewhere else ?
[EDIT]: Forget my question: I can see the pictures now ...
Thanks,
Stefan.
Last edited:
sahe69
Well-known
Second that.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Garry,
When I got my 15 I did a test I shared here but I don't have it now (one year ago).
It's not true that if at f/4.5 you set focus at 6 feet you will get infinity on focus.
I really wanted to have that under control so I printed the shots from Tri-X with my enlarger: at f/4.5 and the focus at 6 feet, infinity is a bit out of focus. It improves by f/5.6, and then it improves again by f/8... And it even needs f/11 to get the best on infinity.
You can test it yourself...
Cheers,
Juan
When I got my 15 I did a test I shared here but I don't have it now (one year ago).
It's not true that if at f/4.5 you set focus at 6 feet you will get infinity on focus.
I really wanted to have that under control so I printed the shots from Tri-X with my enlarger: at f/4.5 and the focus at 6 feet, infinity is a bit out of focus. It improves by f/5.6, and then it improves again by f/8... And it even needs f/11 to get the best on infinity.
You can test it yourself...
Cheers,
Juan
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Juan,
Indeed, d-o-f is grossly overrated. But even rough guesses (not as rough as '6 feet for everything') are covered by d-o-f in most cases.
Cheers,
R.
Indeed, d-o-f is grossly overrated. But even rough guesses (not as rough as '6 feet for everything') are covered by d-o-f in most cases.
Cheers,
R.
binky
Established
I heard mentioned that this might have something due to circle of confusion(??) that it's best to use good judgment (as with anything) in scale focusing.
Can some elaborate?
thanks in advance
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The bigger you blow the picture up, or the closer the distance at which you examine it, or the better your eyesight, the less the d-o-f.
Some d-o-f tables are predicated upon postcard-size enlargements at arm's length, examined by average 60-year-olds without glasses...
(I have average 60-year-old eyesight, or perhaps a fraction better, but it was a lot better at 50.)
Cheers,
R
Some d-o-f tables are predicated upon postcard-size enlargements at arm's length, examined by average 60-year-olds without glasses...
(I have average 60-year-old eyesight, or perhaps a fraction better, but it was a lot better at 50.)
Cheers,
R
jan normandale
Film is the other way
I've never thought about how DoF charts are/were derived. That's actually pretty interesting.
ampguy
Veteran
some great resources on DOF history
some great resources on DOF history
and calculations:
http://dpanswers.com/content/tech_crop.php#dof
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Contents-Frame/71E8DD8F96A9CF14C125697700546F2F
Interesting on how Zeiss feels DOF has changed over time, therefore the CoC k-constant evolved from ~1000 to ~1500
Does this mean our older lenses DOF scales are too generous? Probably.
some great resources on DOF history
and calculations:
http://dpanswers.com/content/tech_crop.php#dof
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Contents-Frame/71E8DD8F96A9CF14C125697700546F2F
Interesting on how Zeiss feels DOF has changed over time, therefore the CoC k-constant evolved from ~1000 to ~1500
Does this mean our older lenses DOF scales are too generous? Probably.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
thanks , this is interesting from a tech PoV. I'm familiar with DoF and using it but this clarified the idea behind the 'markings' for DoF on many lenses. More reading ahead...
Krosya
Konicaze
Seriously?
Seriously?
Really? I used to have a Heliar LTM version and I came across the situation that images just plain didnt have that "snap" that point of focus brings. I'm seriously considering M version as I sold the LTM one just because of that. Actually, there is a really good thread about it here:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/84780-new-super-wide-heliar-15mm-m-2.html
Seriously?
Really? I used to have a Heliar LTM version and I came across the situation that images just plain didnt have that "snap" that point of focus brings. I'm seriously considering M version as I sold the LTM one just because of that. Actually, there is a really good thread about it here:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/84780-new-super-wide-heliar-15mm-m-2.html
Roger Hicks
Veteran
My own suspicion is that there was something wrong with the lens in this case, possibly register: remember that depth of focus is inversely proportional to depth of field. At what distances/apertures were you shooting? Did you try focusing via a tape-measure or external rangefinder? Because if the lens is correctly focused, it doesn't really matter whether it was focused by RF, yardstick, ground glass, or guesswork.
I am surprised that some people find it hard to guess well enough for a 15mm, given that many were happy enough with guess-focusing 105mm lenses on 6x9cm, but evidently there are those who can't do it, or think they can't. If they're happier with coupling, fine, but equally, Zeiss took the same view I do with the 15/2.8, over a stop faster than the Heliar: there was just no point in coupling.
Cheers,
R.
thegman
Veteran
I've put a few rolls through the 15mm now, and indeed, I've had no trouble focusing at all. Usually, I've just put it on infinity and pointed in the right direction and got the photo I wanted. It's a lovely lens, very sharp and gives a FOV which makes the most mundane scene look interesting.
awilder
Alan Wilder
The size smaller size and closer focus are more of an advantage, especially since I plan to use it on a Panasonic G1, effectively giving me a 30 mm lens that focuses down to 0.3 meters vs 0.5 meters.
Krosya
Konicaze
Well, I'm not sure, but I think my lens was fine. Some photos came out very well, yet some (these are mostly one that had focus of interest closer, not just infinity) just didnt have it. It's like even with a 35mm lens - if miss focus even by just a a little - it's not the same. Photo can look focused, yet no "snap". Sometimes I would get lucky with it and get it right - just as I liked it, but I finally got sick of chancing it. Plus 15mm lens is a challenge in itself, so missed focus just didnt help things for me. Or maybe I'm just more particular. So, one of these days I'll try a new M version and see if I like it better. I have a feeling that I will - after all - there are seem to be many other people that had similar issues with LTM version of 15mm Heliar.
Krosya
Konicaze
Well, I did get the M-Heliar 15mm and I tell ya - its one great lens. It feels very good - sturdy and well built - better than ltm version. Not to say ltm one was a poor quality - it's just that M-Heliar is seems to be better and smoother. And I do like the ability to focus the lens. It may not seem like much to some, but I feel more surefooted now. And it handles nice as well it handles flare well. Here are a couple shots from RD1s - I have not had a chance to use it as a true 15mm yet. So it is a well handling lens on RD1 as well.:
Finder
Veteran
A couple of comments, the DoF scales would not be accurate for an RD1 as the sensor size is smaller than 35mm. You lose about one stop--if the aperture is set to f/8, use the f/5.6 scales.
Secondly, depth of focus is proportional to the f-number. DoF nor focal length has any effect on depth of focus.
Secondly, depth of focus is proportional to the f-number. DoF nor focal length has any effect on depth of focus.
