Some notes on Nikon, Leica and Konica lenses on X-Pro1

[Dante_Stella]

I picked up Rainbow Imaging's Nikkor G and Leica M adapters (together, about $50). These are some quick notes.

Adapters

1. The Nikon adapter handles fairly well, as long as you set the lens for minimum aperture and use the included ring to adjust the iris. If you try to use the lens aperture ring, the AI ridge will interact badly with the lens mount/release tab. Registration looked pretty good.

2. The Leica M adapter (at least the sample I got) appeared to be a couple of mills (probably 2/1000 inch or 0.05mm) too thick. This impacted distant focusing (you basically needed to stop down to f/8 with a 28mm or shorter lens; f/5.6 for 35mm). I am going to check with them to see if they have something that is slightly thinner. I bet it would work really well, however, with older Leica and Konica lenses that would otherwise back-focus on the M8 or M9.

Focusing

1. Yes, this camera would benefit from focus peaking or even 5x magnification instead of 10. Sometimes you can see "sparkles" (aliasing) on high-contrast objects that cue the focus point (essentially a weak form of focus peaking). Magnification on lenses 50mm and up is very hard on the eyes.

2. It is very practical to use the OVF and use the press-focus feature to EVF the center spot.

3. It is very difficult to focus a 21mm lens on this camera - or any lens stopped down. Zone focusing, however, is reasonably practical.

Lenses (Nikon)

1. 50/1.4D Nikkor (Japan). Quite good, actually. When focused precisely, it is embarrassingly good compared to a 75 Summilux. The essentially undamped focusing (it has heavy glass) takes some adjustment when using it on a precise system.

2. 35-105/3.5-4.5D Nikkor (aspherical, IF). For a lens that costs about $150 used, it is surprisingly good. A little distortion at the ends, but APS-C is right in the sweet spot. Get ready to clean the sensor a lot.

3. 17-35/2.8D AF-s Nikkor. A huge, heavy lens for the X-Pro, it actually blocks a good amount of the OVF. As with FX, very sharp at f/4 and smaller. Usable at f/2.8. The large, well-damped manual focusing ring is great.

Lenses (M - note that none would focus perfectly at infinity due to the adapter)

4. Leica 35/1.4 ASPH (6-bit coded and recollimated). As reported, this one has a little smearing at the corners. Not a problem on Leicas with microlenses, but this retrofocal lens apparently is not retrofocal enough.

5. Konica 21-35mm Hexanon Dual (recollimated). The viewfinder can show a 21mm FOV for zone-focusing. This lens is amazingly sharp (probably due to its pure retrofocal design and 2m MTF peak), and you can get all of that sharpness in the corners.

6. Konica 28mm M-Hexanon (recollimated). Very sharp and contrasty at close range. This is a Distagon clone and is retrofocus by design.

7. Konica 50mm M-Hexanon (recollimated). No issues. In shallow DOF situations, highlights that are just out of focus are softly rendered. It is not surprising that a 50mm would do well.

8. Konica 90mm M-Hexanon (recollimated). This focal length is really past the point where it is comfortable to use a manual-focus lens handheld with the X-Pro1. Performance is not too different from on film. Same rendering of OOF highlights as the 50.

I think that the Hexanons survived well because the wides are retrofocus to begin with.

Another thing I would note is that with non-Fuji lenses, the flash goes "pop pop" much more visibly (and slowly) when in TTL mode. My bet is that the Fuji TTL system depends in some part on the predictability of the Fuji lenses.

Dante

 

[helen.HH]

So Dante
Does this mean You have finally succumb to the Xp1.........

 

[kshapero]

I have to say that for legacy glass the Sony NEX sounds like it is more thought out.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Dante: I have to say I am impressed with the effort you are putting into getting to know what this camera given the initial reservations that you posted here. Good on you! It is just great to see a camera put thoroughly put through its paces. Very helpful.

Ben Marks

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Thanks, Dante! I think the NEX-5n remains the legacy glass champ, but the XP1 is such a pleasure to use...

 

[semilog]

2. It is very practical to use the OVF and use the press-focus feature to EVF the center spot.

3. It is very difficult to focus a 21mm lens on this camera - or any lens stopped down. Zone focusing, however, is reasonably practical.

Generally agreed.

Focusing the ZM 21/2.8 at full aperture is not too bad, but the lens has smeary corners until f/5.6 or f/8. f/4 is acceptable. At f/2.8 it's ok if the motif is not in the outer 25% of the frame. This is of course improved when shooting 16:9 aspect ratio, which is where I intend to mainly use it. Color is beautiful at all apertures and sharpness is a bourgeois concept anyway.

I may buy the 18/2 after all, if only for its compactness. $600 seems like a lot until I consider that it may prevent me from buying a 28 Summicron for my M6.

 

[noimmunity]

5. Konica 21-35mm Hexanon Dual (recollimated). The viewfinder can show a 21mm FOV for zone-focusing. This lens is amazingly sharp (probably due to its pure retrofocal design and 2m MTF peak), and you can get all of that sharpness in the corners.

Remarkable! The first report I've seen that shows corner sharpness with WA M mounts.

I noticed on your website, Dante, that you mentioned the ZM18. Have you tried this, too?

I am eager to get the official Fuji adapter and try out the Leica 24/3.8 Elmar M.

Thank you very much for sharing this experience.

 

[Dante_Stella]

Remarkable! The first report I've seen that shows corner sharpness with WA M mounts.

I noticed on your website, Dante, that you mentioned the ZM18. Have you tried this, too?

I am eager to get the official Fuji adapter and try out the Leica 24/3.8 Elmar M.

Thank you very much for sharing this experience.

Understand that I focused using a corner zone; I did not check to see how that played out in the middle on the same shot. The 21-35 - which is retrofocal like an SLR lens - is also a lot like an SLR lens in distortion, though. And also understand that this is a lens that teaches to the test at close range. For what a 21-35 costs, you might want to wait for the Fuji short zoom.

Dante

 

[noimmunity]

Understand that I focused using a corner zone; I did not check to see how that played out in the middle on the same shot. The 21-35 - which is retrofocal like an SLR lens - is also a lot like an SLR lens in distortion, though. And also understand that this is a lens that teaches to the test at close range. For what a 21-35 costs, you might want to wait for the Fuji short zoom.

Dante

Thanks for the clarification.

I'd have no interest in scouting for a 21-35. I already have a very capable 21 in the C Biogon (*capable on film and on the M8, that is), and the last thing I need is another M lens. In the absence of viable cost options, my interest in digital-based M systems has waned considerably to the point where I consider paring down to film cameras and a single trio of lenses.

I expect the Fuji 23/2 to be excellent, and have great hopes for the 14 as well.

 

[f16sunshine]

Dante
Thanks for the report. I', looking forward to trying the Hex Dual on the XP1 for an upcoming street festival. Any chance you could post sample from the Hexanons you tested online somewhere/here ?

 

[Dante_Stella]

Dante
Thanks for the report. I', looking forward to trying the Hex Dual on the XP1 for an upcoming street festival. Any chance you could post sample from the Hexanons you tested online somewhere/here ?

Parameters
; handheld (ISO 320, 1/500 sec)
; f=21mm, f/4, 0.8m, lower-left corner focus point
; Focus point is the pistil on the middle purple flower (easiest to see
; the yellow on that one)
; DOF is nominally 8" (0.2m) (using an APS-C CoC)
; DOF is really 2.4" (using the more correct 1-pixel CoC)
; Other flowers are about 4" away front-to-back
; (the camera is at a 45 degree angle to them)
; I have no idea whether I caught the front or back of the zone of focus
; I have no idea if this lens has field curvature

Dante

 

[Dante_Stella]

A couple more notes:

1. LR 4.1 handled edge flare/chromatic aberration better than the in-camera JPGs

2. No noticeable difference in sharpness

3. Pictures take forever to render in LR

4. I think part of the dissatisfaction people have with APS-C is that the greater the pixel density, the smaller the depth of field when pixel peeping. The DOF of even a 21mm lens is hard to catch at close range.

5. Fuji's DOF scales are essentially right for pixel-peeping

6. The purple flowers have white edges in real life!

But I think you'll get my point.

Dante

 

[charjohncarter]

I will probably never go crazy digital, but thanks for the info. And I really like your avatar.

 

[tbarker13]

Hope you don't mind someone else posting images.
Got home tonight to find my Rainbow Imaging adaptor sitting on the front porch. Didn't have much time to shoot, but I wanted to try it with my J3. (a wonderful lens that Brian Sweeney worked on, and spoke very highly of)

I can see it taking a bit to get used to the focusing, but I don't find it unusable at all.

Birdhouse shot at f2.

And my dog, shot around f/4.

 

[kanzlr]

I have to say that for legacy glass the Sony NEX sounds like it is more thought out.

I have to say that for legacy glass, the Ricoh GXR mount module sounds like it is more thought out...wait...it is BUILT for legacy glass in the first place

 

[kshapero]

Yes. Even better but how does the Ricoh handle manual focusing with legacy glass?

 

[raid]

Thanks for this thread.
I am still way behind by "still" using Olympus EP-2 and EPL-1, but I am no digital camera fan. It is a matter of practicality for me to have access to a digital camera in addition to having film cameras.

I find that the old Zeiss SLR lenses match beautifully the Olympus cameras somehow.

 

[rbelyell]

i can definitely cast a vote for raids opinion here re RF glass on oly m4/3, really wonderful rendering even though the camera is not optimized for such use. all my RF glass perform wonderfully on my old ep2 and my new omd.

i also want to agree with kshapiro. though i dont have, but would very much like to have, the gxr, from what ive seen, it renders equally well to the m8. this is no surprise in that it is similarly optimized for RF glass and it has no AA filter (and without the attendant m8 moire problems). unless the new fuji M adapter changes the equation, i have to believe the ricoh system offers the best RF glass IQ for those who dont want to mortgage the farm for art-sake.
tony

 

[kanzlr]

Yes. Even better but how does the Ricoh handle manual focusing with legacy glass?

three options:
magnify everything, magnify center, peaking with white color or, best of all: a high pass filtered image.

in high pass (mode2) it works as well as a good ground glass.

the best thing is, half pressing the shutter always gives you a full frame color image of your scene to frame. So usually I have the screen zoomed to 5x or so, for framing I halfpress the shutter. Easy. let go of the shutter button, and you are back where you where (either zoomed in, or in peaking mode or in high pass mode).

I prefer high pass for most of my photography or the zoomed in/half press to frame workflow.

I had a NEX-5n, too, and find the Ricoh high pass mode to be way superior to the Sony peaking approach. The EVF is not as good, but the better focusing aid more than makes up for it.

 

[Heru Anggono]

Any advice on adapting Nikkor RF 50mm f/1.4SC to X-Pro1?

I was looking at Fotodiox Nikon RF to Fuji-X the other day, anybody has experience with this setup?

Thanks.

BR,
Heru