Reid Review: 28 2.0 Ultron focus shift

[veraikon]

only about 16000 M8"s out there and 8-9000 RD1's

The M8 /8.2 production ist about 1000 / month (= 12 000 / year), M7+MP is ca. 500 /month (6000 /year).
M8 production started late 2006 . Now (Oct 2008) there should be more than 24 000 out . Plus 9000 RD1+RD1s = 33 000 digital M mount rangefinders - and every month the number is growing.
Not a negligable number .

 

[Uwe_Nds]

I also think we approach this from the wrong end! IF the M8 and the RD1 (though less chatter about that) does induce backfocussing in certain lenses, be it Zeiss/VC or Leica - the flaw is in the camera, not the lenses. We should petition Leica to fix the problem with the camera instead!

Tom,
Excuse me, but this is BS.
If a camera works fine with 90% of the lenses, then I would assume that the flaw is in the 10% of the lenses which are not working.
You know, I tried two copies of the Ultron and they both didn't perform as yours.
Now, your copy was handpicked by Mr K. whereas the copies I received were random copies from the assembly line - I assume the same goes for Sean's copy/ copies.
Sean tested the Ultron on the M8 and I also used it on the M8. You use it on film and it performs well, Carl Schofield uses his copy on the M8 also with good results.
So, it looks like the Kobayashi Krew has some QC issues...

Cheers,
Uwe

 

[Harry Lime]

Three points:


A ) If you really, really, really want to know if the 2/28 Ultron suffers from focus shift and how much, there is only one way to find out and that is via scientific means under controlled and repeatable conditions. In short, you need to test 1-3 examples on an optical bench and MTF machine.

Shooting objects in your living room or the great outdoors will give you a general idea of how the lens performs, but this is a far too inaccurate methodology to ascertain the finer details.

Same for an aperture by aperture performance evaluation.

Unless the test was conducted with scientific equipment, it is conjecture. An opinion arrived at by non scientific evaluation and therefore should be considered an estimate or 'best guess'. It should not be taken as the final word. This sort of test will give you a general idea of how the lens performs, but since everyone on the internet is ready to split hairs about issues like this, it is silly to argue about the results of such a test, because it is not accurate enough to provide a reliable conclusion.

B) Testing M lenses is complicated by the fact that they are used on both analog and digital cameras. What may produce passable results on film based cameras, may be a problem on the M8. Also keep in mind that the M8 is a crop format camera, so evaluating corner performance is a mixed bag of goods and the results will obviously not apply to a full frame analog body.

C) Does anyone here believe for a moment that Garry Winogrand, the master of the 28mm, ever sat around considering if his Canon 2.8/28 suffered from focus shift, excessive flare or weak corner performance? Probably not. He was too busy thinking about making pictures.

The 2/28 Ultron probably blows away 98% of 28mm lenses produced in the past few decades. Don't worry about it and go out and shoot.

 

[Florian1234]

Don't worry about it and go out and shoot.

Very wise. Although I enjoy some tech-talk once in a while.😀 (mostly because I still consider to buy a CV 35/1.4 Nokton MC)

 

[Platinum RF]

CV28/2 is a great lens, good for the money, great on the film. Focus shift? do not know and never note any focus problem.

 

[Tom A]

The M8 /8.2 production ist about 1000 / month (= 12 000 / year), M7+MP is ca. 500 /month (6000 /year).
M8 production started late 2006 . Now (Oct 2008) there should be more than 24 000 out . Plus 9000 RD1+RD1s = 33 000 digital M mount rangefinders - and every month the number is growing.
Not a negligable number .

The production might be 1000/month - but sales took a bit of a dive earlier this year (rumours of full frame M9 and quality control issues with already shipped M8's). The actual number is closer to 19000 so far and the RD1 is around 8000 = 27000. Not a negliable number, but far from 100 000+ M6/MP's and inumerable M2/M3/M4 etc as well as Bessa R series and Konica M-mount. Film is still a major factor to contend with in Rf cameras.

 

[Robin Harrison]

Three points:

C) Does anyone here believe for a moment that Garry Winogrand, the master of the 28mm, ever sat around considering if his Canon 2.8/28 suffered from focus shift, excessive flare or weak corner performance? Probably not. He was too busy thinking about making pictures.

THAT should be the end of the thread. Very well said. Buy it, shoot with it, aspire to take just one photo as good as a Winogrand, fail, and then use the focus shift as an excuse.

 

[Tom A]

Tom,
Excuse me, but this is BS.
If a camera works fine with 90% of the lenses, then I would assume that the flaw is in the 10% of the lenses which are not working.
You know, I tried two copies of the Ultron and they both didn't perform as yours.
Now, your copy was handpicked by Mr K. whereas the copies I received were random copies from the assembly line - I assume the same goes for Sean's copy/ copies.
Sean tested the Ultron on the M8 and I also used it on the M8. You use it on film and it performs well, Carl Schofield uses his copy on the M8 also with good results.
So, it looks like the Kobayashi Krew has some QC issues...

Cheers,

Uwe

It doesnt work with 90% of the lenses! More like 50-60% of them and that includes Leica made lenses too - not only Zeiss and VC (and Konica - remember that one!). Noctiluxes and Summilux 75's are still iffy on the M8 as is the 90 Apo-Asph and usually require "re-calibration" of either camera or lens (or both).
I am quite sure that some of the lenses I have are blue-printed and highly specced lenses - but not all are. I also buy lenses over the counter and so far I have really not had a "dud" among them. Again, this is based on using them with film, though some were used for trials with the M8 in Aug/Sept 2006 and the RD1 in Sept/Oct/Nov/Dec of 2004. Of course, these were not Ultron 28 f2's or 35f1.4 SC/MC, but 50f1.5, 40f1.4's,28f1.9 and the wide/ultra wides as well as the 75f2.5 and 90f3.5. I also used these cameras with a variety of Leica Asph's (21/25/35/50/75/90) so I am not totally ignorant of the Digital versus Film issue.
However. I use a lens and if I like it I keep it and there are far more important issues to me than "focus shifts" - percieved or real. Rendition of mid tones, handling etc accounts for most of my "judging" a lens and keeping it. Seans tests serve a purpose, but I would never buy (or sell) a lens based on someone elses "tests". I will borrow one and shoot with it and base my opinion on that. It is fun to look at MTF curves etc, but in reality they dont show how a lens performs in "real" life!
Maybe one of our japanese RFf members can check and see if any of the major magazines in Japan has done tests on at least the 28f2 Ultron - they do extremely thorough test, curves and all as well as "real" life shooting with both film and digital.

 

[kevin m]

If you're shooting on a digital sensor, it's a potential issue, it's simple as that. The depth of film emulsion is more forgiving than a digital sensor, so a lens that's "perfect" on a film M could very well be problematic mounted to an R-D1 or an M8.

FWIW, I don't think much of Voigtlander QC from the products I've owned. The optical performance of the lenses is generally a screaming bargain, but, as the saying goes, you get what you pay for. I have YET to own a VC lens that focused as smoothly or felt as nicely built as a Leica lens, which is understandable, considering the cost difference. But VC doesn't measure up to Hexanon lenses, either, nor any of the many vintage LTM lenses I've owned. I've had two copies of the 40/1.4 SC, loved the optical performance, but gave up trying to get the darned thing to focus smoothly thru its range of travel. It's stiff and awkward, and it spoils the use of the lens. VC needs to get their act together, QC-wise. They've been around for awhile now and the Cineralla aura has worn off.

 

[willie_901]

I think dcsang and harry lime wrote the definitive posts on this thread.

Kudos to both.

 

[Dan States]

Wouldn't it be funny if all the mystical qualities of Leica lenses ("sharp but not biting", "smooth imaging") were just because we had been focusing past infinity all this time....We've always had focus shift we just never noticed it. Pixel peeping on digital is putting all our ugly secrets into the sunlight.

I for one say screw digital and screw pixel peeping. In general photography has never been so crappy while our tools have never been so good.

I've just finished up printing some 4x5 Speed Graphic negs from 1945 and they blow the crap out of anything I've seen in years. Good bye digital, hello big film!

As I said before, these crop sensor digital reviews are murder for many lenses that would look magnificent on film.

 

[Harry Lime]

However. I use a lens and if I like it I keep it and there are far more important issues to me than "focus shifts" - percieved or real. Rendition of mid tones, handling etc accounts for most of my "judging" a lens and keeping it. Seans tests serve a purpose, but I would never buy (or sell) a lens based on someone elses "tests". I will borrow one and shoot with it and base my opinion on that. It is fun to look at MTF curves etc, but in reality they dont show how a lens performs in "real" life!
Maybe one of our japanese RFf members can check and see if any of the major magazines in Japan has done tests on at least the 28f2 Ultron - they do extremely thorough test, curves and all as well as "real" life shooting with both film and digital.

I agree with you, Tom. You can't only rely on MTF tests to determine if a lens is the right choice for you.

But what MTF charts and a test on an optical bench do reveal and prove are the technical aspects of a lens. Does it focus shift? Are the corners sharp? Is lens A, sharper than lens B? There is so much pointless debate on the net, with people across the planet getting all worked up in to a frothy fury, about findings that are basically conjecture. A best guess. A hunch. A gut check. It's silly.

MTF tests only tell the technical side of the story. You also need to go out and shoot with a lens and determine if it meets your needs in terms of ergonomics and optical signature.

Take the Zeiss ZF Planar 1.4/50. The charts indicate that this is a lens with excellent performance. But in real life I am less than thrilled with the optical signature of this lens, so it doens't get all that much use. Instead for the past year I have been shooting with a vintage 1960's Nikkor-H.C 2/50 on an old Nikon F. Why? Because to my eye it produces more pleasing images than the Zeiss, which is the better performer.

 

[jky]

When I first read this thread, I began to have second thoughts on the 28 Ultron... I've used a 28mm 1.9 that was fine on my M6, but had enough focus shift (I guess that's what it was) when stopped to f4-5.6 at about 6-9 ft to make it pretty much useless. It was obvious on 5x7 prints therefore no pixel peeping required, which I'm not a big fan of anyway. Usually, I'm not too picky on such things just as long as it's still usable out there in the real world - no mtf charts, brick walls, etc...
So I'm thinking that there's not better way to see if it is usable aside from actually trying it out...too bad I have no local here that carries the lens.
... now where's my visa... 😉

 

[Platinum RF]

Three points:

A ) If you really, really, really want to know if the 2/28 Ultron suffers from focus shift and how much, there is only one way to find out and that is via scientific means under controlled and repeatable conditions. In short, you need to test 1-3 examples on an optical bench and MTF machine.

Shooting objects in your living room or the great outdoors will give you a general idea of how the lens performs, but this is a far too inaccurate methodology to ascertain the finer details.

Same for an aperture by aperture performance evaluation.

Unless the test was conducted with scientific equipment, it is conjecture. An opinion arrived at by non scientific evaluation and therefore should be considered an estimate or 'best guess'. It should not be taken as the final word. This sort of test will give you a general idea of how the lens performs, but since everyone on the internet is ready to split hairs about issues like this, it is silly to argue about the results of such a test, because it is not accurate enough to provide a reliable conclusion.

B) Testing M lenses is complicated by the fact that they are used on both analog and digital cameras. What may produce passable results on film based cameras, may be a problem on the M8. Also keep in mind that the M8 is a crop format camera, so evaluating corner performance is a mixed bag of goods and the results will obviously not apply to a full frame analog body.

C) Does anyone here believe for a moment that Garry Winogrand, the master of the 28mm, ever sat around considering if his Canon 2.8/28 suffered from focus shift, excessive flare or weak corner performance? Probably not. He was too busy thinking about making pictures.

The 2/28 Ultron probably blows away 98% of 28mm lenses produced in the past few decades. Don't worry about it and go out and shoot.

Totally agree with you, I will not pay any money for someone's opinion on the internet , I can save the money buy the lens shoot, if I like it I keep it if not sell it.

 

[IlijaB]

I'm not sure what your pics are supposed to prove. But if I was to judge the lens based on them, I'd definitely skip the lens and never look back.

You say it is not falloff on the right of the picture. Okay. But there is very noticeable falloff on the left.
The corners appear to be very soft. The center is very soft, too. The only sharpness I see is around the center while the center itself is soft. This would leave me to deduct the lens is suffering a misalignment or uneven focus plane in the design, field curvature (I tend to believe this to be true). I also sense some distortion. I do understand that such a design at this pricepoint will show some distortion so no biggie.

I'm basing my sayings on this web shot so it's very unscientific. But then again, what I see is not very positive. After all, it's a CV lens, not a Leitz, so no surprise.

This the Ultron 28mm f2.0 @f2 and 1/15 handheld. These are tax payments - the farmers had to bring these 60kg/125lb "bags" of rice in to the local office!
Takayama, Japan May 2008

P.S the dark shadow on the right is not fall off! There was a very large and heavy door cutting off the light.

 

[kevin m]

...I will not pay any money for someone's opinion on the internet...

Wow, the hostility on this forum to unwelcome new information is really getting silly, as is the notion that Sean Reid's tests are his "opinions." I used to used a lens collimator in a previous job, and all it would do in this instance is allow you to nail down the specifics with a greater degree of precision, it wouldn't change the fact that this lens suffers from evident focus shift.

 

[Platinum RF]

Please continue to debate at least the information in here is free, well somewhat.

 

[willie_901]

I have a CV 28/3.5 LTM lens which meets my needs, so I really don't care much about the Ultron 28/2. I also have Zeiss, Mamiya-Sekor, and Nikon lenses.

So, I have no horse in this race and no hostility.

...I will not pay any money for someone's opinion on the internet...


willie

 

[Tom A]

I'm not sure what your pics are supposed to prove. But if I was to judge the lens based on them, I'd definitely skip the lens and never look back.

You say it is not falloff on the right of the picture. Okay. But there is very noticeable falloff on the left.
The corners appear to be very soft. The center is very soft, too. The only sharpness I see is around the center while the center itself is soft. This would leave me to deduct the lens is suffering a misalignment or uneven focus plane in the design, field curvature (I tend to believe this to be true). I also sense some distortion. I do understand that such a design at this pricepoint will show some distortion so no biggie.

I'm basing my sayings on this web shot so it's very unscientific. But then again, what I see is not very positive. After all, it's a CV lens, not a Leitz, so no surprise.

The shadow on the left comes from a dark wall. not fall off! It was a less than ideal situation to shoot in (which is a good test of the lens by the way). There is a bit off fall off on the lens at f2.0 - about the same as with te Summicron 28f2 by the way. The corners are slightly softer than the Summicron, but not to the point that it renders the lens useless. The center sharpness is better than the Summicron 28! The "field curvature" here is actually in the subject, not the lens. The 60kg ricebags are not stacked absolutely 2 dimensionally flat - it is a rather haphazard way of stacking them. I like the shot for the simple reason that it shows what the lens is capable of at f2 and 1/15 sec hand-held! With a tripod and perfectly aligning it - it would have been better - but that is not how i shoot, so that performance is of no interest to me.
I f you want to see what the lens is capable off, go to the Packard shot at the bottom of the pictures and then go to our Flickr site and look at the extreme enlargement of the license plate - this is even off center from the optical axis!

 

[Tom A]

i dont "test" lenses in any way - at least not scientifically. As with MTF curves and plotted charts etc - it is a/boring like hell ( I have done in the past) and b/ It really does not tell me enough of how the lens performs - except under heavily controlled conditions.
I look at the curves and think "Would be fun to try" - case in point - the new 24f3.8 Leica Elmar - the MTF curve is astounding - but until I have tried it out - I would not commit $2000+ for one.
The whole "uproar" about the 28f2's is a tempest in a teacup! If you already have a 28f2.0 Summicron, I would not buy the Ultron 28f2.0 - but if you are in the market for a very good 28f2.0 - it is an excellent alternative. I have had 28f2 Summicron's and got rid of it as i found it did not perform as well as the price indicated and for fast 28's I used the 28f1.9 and when the Ultron 28f2 came out I found that I like it better (partly handling and partly performance).
Photography is highly subjective - what one person deems unacceptable is what another person considers just the right thing. Lens do show different "signatures" and if you like them, keep and use them and if you dont - switch!
It has been said before - with todays technology when it comes to designing lenses, there are really no bad lenses out there! There are different lenses and different ways that a lens shows the transition from 3D to 2D. The trick is to find what works for you.
I used to do highly critical aerial work as well as medium and large format industrial photography and in some of these cases lenses were calibrated and recalibrated for indiividual jobs with fancy certificates to baffle clients with! These day I take pictures for my own pleasure and, though I like high performance lenses as much as the next guy/girl - I shoot mainly 400 asa bl/w film and handhold the camera - and my requirements are based on that. If it works under those conditions, it is a good lens , if it doesn't I get rid of it!
If you are a shooter who specializes in highly critical, almost "technical" photography - you dont rely on ANYBODIES opinion - you test everything and have lenses/cameras calibrated to do the specific job the client requires (and charge him accordingly).
I use VC,Zeiss,Canon and Leica lenses all the time (no Konica's at the moment) and though slightly different from each other, they all work well and some work better than others.
Of course, I could try to find my USAF resolution chart and do set ups and plot stuff, but I dont think it would change my opinion. OH, I would never judge a lens from a image on a computer screen either - way to many variables here.