RF accuracy chart

ampguy said:
...from practical experience, I have a higher hit rate with the RD1s (new) at 75/1.4 and 2.0 which are *RED*, than with CLA'd M6 .72 with Noct 1, and CLA'd CL with 40/f2 which should be *OK* Maybe the Canadian 75's used .03 for coc??...
Click to expand...
Indeed it is not normal at all. At f/1.4 your 75 is way out of the accuracy range of the Epson. It is even very difficult to focus on the M8. Also, the .72x M6 has a longer EBL than the R-D1 (w/o magnifier) and the 40/2 should not have any problem with your CL at any aperture IMHO. Did you have the 40/2 cla'd as well?
 
LCT said:
Indeed it is not normal at all. At f/1.4 your 75 is way out of the accuracy range of the Epson. It is even very difficult to focus on the M8. Also, the .72x M6 has a longer EBL than the R-D1 (w/o magnifier) and the 40/2 should not have any problem with your CL at any aperture IMHO. Did you have the 40/2 cla'd as well?
Click to expand...

Ted, are you framing your subjects for the 75mm like you would with the 50mm? (i.e. farther away from your subjects with the 75mm)
 
Not that I don't want an SP ....

I am keeping this chart updated as we add stuff ...
 
Last edited:
I thought the rule of thumb was the EBL should be equal to or greater than the physical diaphragm opening for the aperture. Given that, one would need at least a 50mm EBL to focus the Noctilux. I wouldn't bet on reliably focusing the Noctilux consistently with the 25mm-ish EBLs of the R and R2. Anyone been doing that regularly?
 
Anupam Basu said:
I thought the rule of thumb was the EBL should be equal to or greater than the physical diaphragm opening for the aperture. Given that, one would need at least a 50mm EBL to focus the Noctilux. I wouldn't bet on reliably focusing the Noctilux consistently with the 25mm-ish EBLs of the R and R2. Anyone been doing that regularly?
Click to expand...

Not the 50/1, but I have reliably used the 50/1.2 on the R2, Anupam.

Note that the above table does not account for minimum focus. For example, the 135/2.8 focuses down to 1.5m (? out of memory), the Leica 50/1 to 1m, and the newest Leica 50/1.4 to .7m, which makes the 50/1.4 practically as hard to focus as the 50/1. The worst lens to focus, IMO, is the 75/1.4 at .7m ....

digitalintrigue said:
Roland, for completeness you might want to add the 105/2.5. :)
Click to expand...

I'll let it sit for a while, maybe we get some more requests ....
How is "my" 105 doing, BTW ? :)
 
Last edited:
While we're having fun, here's a universal graph based on a .030 CoC. It's just a quick grab out of Apple's Grapher utility.

The Y axis is required EBL, and the X axis is aperture. The 35, 50, 75, 90, and 135 focal length curves are labeled.

No warranty express or implied. :)
 

Attachments

  • ebl.jpg
    ebl.jpg
    140 KB · Views: 3
Roland,

This would be a great tool for a Marketing person to use to figure out what is the right length for a particular mix of lenses. Not that there would ever be that big a market again, but it's very cool.

Thank you Sir!

B2 (;->
 
ferider said:
I'll let it sit for a while, maybe we get some more requests ....
How is "my" 105 doing, BTW ? :)
Click to expand...


How 'bout a request for 43mm Pentax? Although any focal length under 50 is a not an issue...

*Your* 105 is doing great. Hey, come to think of it, I also bought one from Bill (F mount.)
 
ampguy said:
...
Would be interesting to see if this table corresponds to other users experiences, I'd guess not, or who in their right mind would use a Bessa or CL??!!
...
Click to expand...

Well..
I have a Bessa R and I have never been able to focus correctly the Jupiter 9 at f2, it start looking OK at f4.

I know it may be because it is Russian but in my opinion the J9 myth has born because of the short rangefinder base of many cameras out there like the Bessa..
R.
 
ferider said:
Just updated the above picture and emailed you the sheet.

Cheers,

Roland.
Click to expand...

Would you be so kind to post it somewhere on the net? :eek:
 
Beware

Beware

digitalintrigue said:
How 'bout a request for 43mm Pentax? Although any focal length under 50 is a not an issue...

*Your* 105 is doing great. Hey, come to think of it, I also bought one from Bill (F mount.)
Click to expand...

It is an addictive lens. Beware.

I use to make fun of people having so many 50mm lenses, then I looked at the fact that I had four 105/2.5 (S, LTM, F and F AIs (ok the last one a lens I gave my wife years back that I now have)) and two CV 25/4 (S and LTM).

BTW, John asked me for your address so I think this is a fast turn around from him. A good sign.

B2 (;->
 
Well......

Well......

Roberto said:
I know it may be because it is Russian but in my opinion the J9 myth has born because of the short rangefinder base of many cameras out there like the Bessa..
R.
Click to expand...

No, there's a lot of truth to it. I had a J9 on my Bessa T, my Leica M6 and M4-P testing it and it was off. Have a number of folks around the world with similar issues (the focus being off of dead on a couple to four inches). Went to a Nikkor 85/2, SPOT ON with every camera.

B2 (;->
 
Yes, this will be my third (F, S, LTM)

I emailed John...thanks for the heads up.

Roland, I can host...
 
OK, here's a new chart with limit lines for common bodies.

[edit: updated the chart for better readability]
 

Attachments

  • EBL chart small.jpg
    EBL chart small.jpg
    175.8 KB · Views: 4
Last edited:
BillBingham2 said:
No, there's a lot of truth to it. I had a J9 on my Bessa T, my Leica M6 and M4-P testing it and it was off. Have a number of folks around the world with similar issues (the focus being off of dead on a couple to four inches). Went to a Nikkor 85/2, SPOT ON with every camera.

B2 (;->
Click to expand...

This is me focusing an N 85/2 on a friend's RD1 (no magnifier) -- and failing miserably. I've tried on R3 and R2 with no success. :mad:

Photo by Robert :)

139363347_BWKYU-L.jpg


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