Focus frustration with fast glass

ferider said:
1) just because the glass is big, it doesn't mean the DOF is very thin, comparatively. A 90/2 wide open has much thinner DOF than a 50/1, and people use it all the time.
2) the classic fast lenses out there (like the Noctilux) were made for wide open, journalistic type (10m and beyond) photography. Not for close up portraits and bokeh shots. It is questionable how good a portrait is when one eye is in focus and the other isn't. Just food for thought.
3) change technique: pre-focus the lens, and move your body.
4) focus bracket if your subject allows.
5) use a camera with long EBL and little back-lash; do some test shots to make sure your camera and lens are well adjusted to each other.

And as an example, one of our members (Randy) taken with 75/1.4. On a normal M6 classic as he can witness (for DOF numbers, check dofmaster.com). Re-composing after focusing is an additional challenge :)


Roland.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with that Roland ;)

 
PS I mostly stopped using anything above f1:2.8 years ago simply because of the problems with DOF frustration, I push the film these days, mostly
 
I spent a lot of money to improve focus accuracy of my M6: MP finder upgrade for slightly more contrast; Leica 1.40X magnifier; and I had my 75 Lux matched to my body when I sent it to Sherry for an overhaul.

Then I also added a TA Rapidwinder that adds about a quarter pound to an M-Body, plus a TA rapidgrip to help stabilize the camera. IMHO a heavy camera is a steady camera and anything that helps the balance and handling will improve your focusing abilities. I also use a TA softie soft release which also helps.

I shoot a Nikon F3 non HP for the slight increase in magnification over a HP prism with a MD-4 motordrive for use with a Noct-Nikkor. Again the added weight helps stabilize the camera. Also the VF'er is a lot brighter than a Leica rangefinder. I would say the shear mass of the motordrive kinda negates the mirror slap.

I discovered that my second shots tended to nail the focus and my hit rate doubled when I double focused, where after I focused initially I gently bumped and racked the focus a second time before taking the shot. I also learned to practice-practice and practice.

Cal
 
Well, opinions vary. For one thing, I often use my Noct at minimum focus and so far it's working out just fine.
When I get close, I move my body back and forth for micro adjustment. And yes, as JSU has suggested, focus bracketing is a wise thing to do if the shot is important. (Aren't they all.)

As far as the ... being better than the Noct :rolleyes:. Better at what? Better how?

I often hear this rationalization by those who have sold their Nocts. But never see the sample images to back their play :).

The Noct and the Canon .95 each have a unique signature.

It's always interesting to me that people pile on a lens like the Noct when these types of thread appear :confused:.

Is it your way of feeling smug that you "don't need one?" By trying to convince others to feel the same?




















The notion that lenses like the Noctilux weren't designed for close work is nonsense. Mine focuses to three feet and I see no reason not to use it at that distance.

I used to own the Canon 50 1.0 (amazing lens) and one of my best images with it was taken @ F1 with a 12 mm extension tube of one of my cats.



Canon 50 1.0 EF @ 1.0 on Canon 5D2 with 12 mm extension tube

Sorry about the dust on the print. This picture is on my fridge and gets dirty :).
 
Last edited:
Of course you are frustrated. What you are want to do – nail focus at close lens-to-subject distances – is extremely difficult using optical rangefinders equipped with extraordinarily fast 50 mm lenses.
 
I have a .85x M7 with 1.25x magnifier. The TA Rapidwinder does a great job of balancing the heavy lenses. The AE allows me to hold the camera steady without the need to mess with controls. With this set up I get perfect focus wide open minimum distance all the time with the Noctilux and 75mm Summilux. Before without the magnifier I was getting 50% and less with the .72x M6.
 
Rayt said:
I have a .85x M7 with 1.25x magnifier. The TA Rapidwinder does a great job of balancing the heavy lenses. The AE allows me to hold the camera steady without the need to mess with controls. With this set up I get perfect focus wide open minimum distance all the time with the Noctilux and 75mm Summilux. Before without the magnifier I was getting 50% and less with the .72x M6.
Click to expand...

Ray's 0.85 VF'er times 1.25 equals 1.0625. Better than my 0.72 VF'er times 1.40 equals 1.008.

Ray's higher magnification is signifigantly higher and is about the same difference between a Nikon F3 non HP and a Nikon F3 HP.

Also the spike/dagger on a Rapidwinder spreads your hands apart and provides an additional finger grip for your left hand that aids in ergonomics. Highly recommended!!!

Cal
 
I appreciate all the comments so far on this thread. My original question was about how many "keepers" with good focus one tends to get and many of you alluded to having a percentage of shots with missed focus.

Juan, you and others are making me re-think the best application for this type of lens; I appreciate your experience and insight. I have been using my 50 f/2 quite a bit for many of the reasons you mentioned.
 
Initially I was so frustrated with not able to focus my fast lenses to a point that I sold them for EOS but bought them back again. I tried mounting the 1.25x magnifier to my M3's but the eye piece thread is too shallow.
 
SciAggie said:
I appreciate all the comments so far on this thread. My original question was about how many "keepers" with good focus one tends to get and many of you alluded to having a percentage of shots with missed focus.

Juan, you and others are making me re-think the best application for this type of lens; I appreciate your experience and insight. I have been using my 50 f/2 quite a bit for many of the reasons you mentioned.
Click to expand...

I get about a 50% hit rate, but realize that the 75 Lux and 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor both focus closer than a Noctilux.

BTW for 50mm I own several that are not the fastest because of the way they render and show their character. Slower lenses have faster handling that are better suited for street. Mostly a function of quicker focus due to a thinner diameter.

I will say that the Noct-Nikkor on my rig is not only a fast shooter, it also offers quick focus because the VF'er is so bright. A F3non HP with motordive is my street rig in NYC.

Cal
 
Thanks, Juan :)

Calzone said:
I get about a 50% hit rate, but realize that the 75 Lux and 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor both focus closer than a Noctilux.
Click to expand...

Me too, for 75/1.4 and 90/2, usually on M3, or on 0.7 finder with magnifier.

For a 50/1.4 at 0.7m or a 50/2 at 0.5m (check dofmaster, you'll be surprised how shallow this gets), I nail almost every shot.

Roland.
 
Another vote for the F3 non-HP finder with MD4. The J screen (I think - ground glass, split image, and microprism) and the H screens (all microprism) seem to work best. With either set of screens, I can use a 60 macro at very close focus and get a cat's eye - yes it's that close - in focus most of the time. I prefer the Leica, but my in-focus accuracy is much lower.
 
SLRs are a completely different business, if you do the math for long lenses, or, say, an 85/1.2 ....

180/2.8 at close distance on a simple OM1:

121358526_shHRj-L.jpg
 
Last edited:
SciAggie said:
I appreciate all the comments so far on this thread. My original question was about how many "keepers" with good focus one tends to get and many of you alluded to having a percentage of shots with missed focus.

Juan, you and others are making me re-think the best application for this type of lens; I appreciate your experience and insight. I have been using my 50 f/2 quite a bit for many of the reasons you mentioned.
Click to expand...

There are always some missed shots with any lens, but an awful lot depends on what you're shooting and how, and on what you mean by a 'missed shot'. Once I'd got used to it, my failure rate with the Noctilux, which I had for a year, was at worst twice as great as with any other lens, i.e. a very low failure rate. It wasn't missing focus that worried me: it was the minimal d-o-f I got even when focus was perfect.

Cheers,

R.
 
presspass said:
Another vote for the F3 non-HP finder with MD4. The J screen (I think - ground glass, split image, and microprism) and the H screens (all microprism) seem to work best. With either set of screens, I can use a 60 macro at very close focus and get a cat's eye - yes it's that close - in focus most of the time. I prefer the Leica, but my in-focus accuracy is much lower.
Click to expand...

I had an F6 and now D700 with electronic rangefinder. Very accurate focusing. One time I borrowed a friend's D3 for a few quick shots with a converted 90 Summicron and he had the diopters set the other way so the viewfinder was blurry. By just looking at the arrows and focus confirm dot the portraits all came out perfectly focused.
 
Roger Hicks said:
It wasn't missing focus that worried me: it was the minimal d-o-f I got even when focus was perfect.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Last year at the Greenwich Village Halloween Parade I had a great opportunity before the event in the staging area. Also I had 5 rolls of Kodachrome 64 that someone had kindly given me.

I met this guy Drew who had a 1959 Hurst that he used to give tours where celebrities died or were killed in NYC, but Drew also sported a shaved head that was totally covered in paint by a professional make-up artist providing a great modeling opportunity in mid afternoon light.

I blew through a roll and a half of Kodachrome (24 exposure rolls) getting Drew closer and closer. Eventually I had his head full frame in a portrait/vertical and I was literally in his face with my Noct-Nikkor.

When I got the slides back from Dwayne's the tip of his nose was fuzzy on some of the shots. I wish I had more experience with this lens, because at the Halloween Parade it was still a new lens to me having only gotten it a week or so before.

Cal
 
Roger Hicks said:
It was the minimal d-o-f I got even when focus was perfect.
Click to expand...

I think that's really the key, also for me. Once you forget bokeh and such, think twice what should be in focus and what not, and how much DOF you really need for a good shot ....

Here are two example of what fast lenses were made for:

777541942_ws6Zz-XL.jpg


223486513_TRsNX-XL-1.jpg


In both cases the moon was moving, so 1/4th of a second or faster is needed; first shot 50 Summilux, second Noctilux. The mist in the second shot is just that, not the Noctilux rendering funkily :)

Roland.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom