Sean's RD1 tests

Anyone still interested in hosting these, please e-mail me off-list at sreid@sover.net We can put the zip file up at a few different sites to ease bandwidth issues.

Thanks,

Sean
 
Since these pictures are being made available even before the article, I should point out that I looked at the critical differences in sharpness among these lenses using flat field tests (not included in these samples and dead boring). The samples I am posting in these sets are generally focused correctly but they're made using a living breathing subject in existing light settings. As such, they aren't necessarily the best indicators of lens sharpness per se.

Instead, they're meant to show how these various lenses draw in both B&W and color. I discuss sharpness and contrast in some detail in the review but these samples are meant to give comparative samples of the characters of the various lenses. In my mind, that aspect is crucially important to a serious photographer.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please let me know if any of you are experiencing problems and give me feedback on how fast or slow the site is.
Thanks,
Chris
 
Sean,
Given all the discussions on focus issues with various lenses close up on the R-D1 in other threads can you tell us whether you checked for this on all the lenses and if so what were your findings.
 
The Leica 75/1.4 cannot be focused reliably and consistently by my R-D1. The Noctilux can be, under best case circumstances, but I wouldn't ever use it professionally for fast changing subject matter.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Sean,
Sorry I should have been clearer. I was refering to potential front (and sometimes back) focus issues close-up as compared to rangefinder rather than the ability of the R-D1's rangefinder base to achieve accurate focus. See Phil's thread on Focusing Accuracy for his findings with a number of lenses or the Deadstock Avenon thread. It happens with some M mount as well as screw (+ adapter) as I have found with 35mm Cron's etc. so is not just an adapter problem.
 
Last edited:
Hi Jim,

When I did the flat field tests, I did three rounds for each lens at each tested aperture (wide open, F/2.8 and F/8). The first was focus as indicated by the rangefinder, the second focus set just slightly ahead and the third focus set just slightly back. The sharpest pictures were kept and evaluated. I did this as much to compensate for the inherent slight imprecision of all rangefinders, as well as for possible human error.

It's not in the article, but from my rough notes:

Leica 50/1.0 - difficult to focus with consistent accuracy, no trend of back or forward focus though

Canon 50/1.2 - accurate focus
Canon 50/1.4 - accurate focus
Leica 50/1.4 Asph - accurate focus
Nokton 50/1.5 - accurate focus
Canon 50/1.8 - accurate focus

CV 35/1.2 - accurate focus
Leica 35/1.4 - accurate focus
Canon 35/1.5 - slight back focus
CV 35/1.7 - slight front focus
Canon 35/2 - slight front focus
Zeiss 35/2 - accurate focus
CV 40/1.4 - slight front focus

But...any of these could be human error and I didn't test this aspect specifically.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Hi Huck,

Yes, it could represent a lot of things. That's why I'm not getting into it in the article. Too many possible variables.

Cheers,

Aunt Sally
 
driggett said:
Please let me know if any of you are experiencing problems and give me feedback on how fast or slow the site is.
Thanks,
Chris
Click to expand...



Hi Chris,

Yes I am encountering problems: I can enter your site but not the tests. Maybe hidden in HTML?
Only option is opening the index. Not the samples themselves. :bang:

Any solutions?

Thanks, Rob.
 
laptoprob said:
Hi Chris,

Yes I am encountering problems: I can enter your site but not the tests. Maybe hidden in HTML?
Only option is opening the index. Not the samples themselves. :bang:

Any solutions?

Thanks, Rob.
Click to expand...

Rob,
I just tried again and I have no problems clicking on a index picture to get the full size picture. When you mentioned tests you mean each picture correct?
Thanks,
Chris
 
Hmmmm :bang:
It must be me or something.
Or is it a secret Mac handshake?
I get the index page only downloaded as html page or opened as html page. Not functioning. So I only get the 'empty' shortcuts to the testshots themselves.

I must be missing something.

Rob.



driggett said:
Rob,
I just tried again and I have no problems clicking on a index picture to get the full size picture. When you mentioned tests you mean each picture correct?
Thanks,
Chris
Click to expand...
 
I actually tested two copies of the 35/1.7 BTW, the first performed rather poorly and the second was so much better it was almost as if it was a different model lens. I've tested various Voigtlander lenses and the first example of the 35/1.7 was the first lens I've tested from the company that I would call "defective". I've run into bad copies of Canon lenses several times but that first 35/1.7 was a first among the CV glass.

So what observations do people have about the lenses based on the samples?

Sean
 
Sean, I wish that I could reply to your question, but the download is just too long & cumbersome for me to view them on the monitor or even print them out for comparison. Wish I could, but i can't. Thanks for making them available because when your article is published, the pictures will be a handy archive to reference regarding specific points you make about the lenses.

Cheers,
Huck
 
I found I can't open the files, or see the thumbnails when using Firefox browser (my default), but it works fine in IE. Maybe this is the cause of some of the problems mentioned above?

cheers
Phil
 
Thank you to the folks who read the draft of the article and offered comments. I should have it finished soon.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Lens test

Lens test

Hi, there.
I am new to the list but one of nuts who recklessly jumped to R-D1 soon after its release in Japan. :p I would love to read the article. I enjoyed the lens comparison very much and am interested in Nokton 40mm in particular.

Cheers,

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