Focus technique

[Lss]

Anyway, so far it seems none of you are seeing any obvious problems with the sharpness?

Well, I agree the pole shot is technically weak. I didn't try how much simply upping the contrast helps, but some detail seems to be missing. It is anyway an outlier, the other images do not appear as bad. I tend to think there is less pixel-level detail than I am used to seeing from R-D1 (using the Voigtländer lenses), but it is not completely missing (for example the thrash can in front of the fountain). The grass looks smudgy, but it is a 6MP sensor at distance. There are just so many pixels left for small details. For example the following shots have pretty good grass detail when I go pixel-peeping the RAWs, but these are with the 50-mm Summicron and the angle is much narrower:

1/450

1/600

I was wondering what the shutter speeds are in your examples. The photo with the swimmers looks like it has some motion blur and the splashes aren't sharp. The one with the people around fountain has less, but the shutter speed is not high enough to completely freeze the water. Any chance of camera shake?

Anyway, I don't suspect anything is wrong here. Perhaps try a few test shots on a tripod at various distances to really make sure you have all things under control and that focus is spot on.

 

[Lss]

The pole remains soft in the processed shot that lewis44 posted.

 

[ped]

I use the f1.9 ultron on my R-D1 exclusively (though I did have a 21mm for a bit)

I love the lens and think its perfectly suited to the camera. Please look at my Flickr to see some results. I haven't ever found it to be lacking sharpness. Are you using the f2 lens, though? I haven't tried that one.

 

[kennylovrin]

Just to kind of finish of this thread, I've decided to go for either a C Biogon or a Biogon instead. So I'll swap the 28mm for a 35mm first, then get a 28 Zeiss later. In the midst of all this I've realized I'm more of a 50mm FOV guy, so I'll go back to 35mm at the same time here - I had the 35mm nokton before but I didn't like that one either (which is why i switched to the ultron).

Not that it may interetst anyone, but I felt I needed to "close" the thread as I started it. 🙂

 

[kennylovrin]

OP...Nothing wrong with the sharpness on your shots. Too picky. Shoot away, go for good pix comp and don't be a pixel peeper so much.

Sharpness only goes so far anyway...

(image removed due to censorship policy of forum)

You got a point, but in this case I just can't let it go. I regret so bad that I didn't spend the extra 40 euros for a zeiss lens straight away when I opted for the voigtlander. So there is no other way to peace of mind for me. 🙂

Generally though I agree with you, it's just that this time I failed to just ignore it. 🙂

 

[Larken]

Just to kind of finish of this thread, I've decided to go for either a C Biogon or a Biogon instead. So I'll swap the 28mm for a 35mm first, then get a 28 Zeiss later. In the midst of all this I've realized I'm more of a 50mm FOV guy, so I'll go back to 35mm at the same time here - I had the 35mm nokton before but I didn't like that one either (which is why i switched to the ultron).

Not that it may interetst anyone, but I felt I needed to "close" the thread as I started it. 🙂

if it matters to you, 'tests' have shown the f2.8 c biogon to be generally a little sharper than the f2.0 variant for zeiss wide open (its tough to see the difference, as the f2.0 is an awesome lens in its own right too). However, the extra stop in f2 can make the difference in a usable shot night.

I use the c biogon myself, and I am extremely satisfied with the lens, for day shooting only. At night, I hardly need bother. I suppose the only alternatives is to either get the f1.2/f1.4 noktons (affordable, but I just can't bring myself to give up the biogon), or the f1.4 summilux (which is the ideal lens to go for, but hardly affordable to me).

 

[kennylovrin]

if it matters to you, 'tests' have shown the f2.8 c biogon to be generally a little sharper than the f2.0 variant for zeiss wide open (its tough to see the difference, as the f2.0 is an awesome lens in its own right too). However, the extra stop in f2 can make the difference in a usable shot night.

I use the c biogon myself, and I am extremely satisfied with the lens, for day shooting only. At night, I hardly need bother. I suppose the only alternatives is to either get the f1.2/f1.4 noktons (affordable, but I just can't bring myself to give up the biogon), or the f1.4 summilux (which is the ideal lens to go for, but hardly affordable to me).

I have been debating the f/2 vs the f/2.8 actually. When I think about how I've been using my R-D1 I've realized I use it 99% of the time in situations where I can't even get close to 2.8 because the shutter only goes to 1/2000 - like bright daylight. So in that sense the 2.8 is completely fine, especially weighing in that it's a bit cheaper.

However, when I start considering the 1% of lower light shots and the possibility to add an ND filter as I like shallower DOF, then the f/2 starts to look like a more valuable option. However, it is so rare that I'm not sure I need to go that route at the moment, so I'm still leaning towards the 2.8. The thing is that if I really want to shoot in low light of with really thin DOF, I'm better of using my 5dmkii for those shots. And if I one day chose to drop the SLR kit then that will leave me with money for a faster lens for my R-D1.

 

[agz]

Hi, I use the same lens (Ultron 28mm f/2) on an RD1. The sharpness of your shots is similar in my case. Based on experience, images taken with the Ultron are contrasty but need some additional sharpening in PP to get that 'crispness' I look for.

Focus shift and pixel-peeping sharpness aside, the Ultron still presents one of the best value normal (42mm equiv) and fast (f/2) lenses for the RD1.

Hope this helps.

 

[rollbahn]

f2 on my ZM 35/2 is definitely a little softer than 2.8 but I seem to always be somewhere where I need that extra light so it comes in handy. As usual, it's a tradeoff game between sharpness, high ISO and shutter speed.

I find that with static images I can get a usable image out of the R-D1 at 1/15 second and I shoot quite often at 1/30. I'm quite amazed how slow it can go and still keep steady so 2.8 might work ok for you.