ddimaria
Well-known
Anyone use this lens on the RD-1, have any samples???? I'm wondering if the metering works and if there is any signifigant vignetting??
THKS
THKS
Superangulon 21/3.4
- Thread starter ddimaria
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 10
- Views 1K
LCT
ex-newbie
I did not try it personally but may i draw your attention on the R-D1 User's Guide (page 17):
QUOTE:
Some M/L mount lenses cannot be used because of the structure of the camera. For example, lenses with external dimensions exceeding 20.5 mm cannot be used with this camera.
Lenses that cannot be used include:
- Hologon 15mm f/8
- Super Angulon 21mm f/3.4
- Super Angulon 21mm f/4...
UNQUOTE
Best,
LCT
QUOTE:
Some M/L mount lenses cannot be used because of the structure of the camera. For example, lenses with external dimensions exceeding 20.5 mm cannot be used with this camera.
Lenses that cannot be used include:
- Hologon 15mm f/8
- Super Angulon 21mm f/3.4
- Super Angulon 21mm f/4...
UNQUOTE
Best,
LCT
rvaubel
Well-known
Well if Epson says it wont work, I would tend to believe them. But the rear element has to REALLY stick out into the camera body to interfer with the inside of the camera body. Thats the problem, its not like its to close to the film plane. My 15mm Heliar and 21mm Kobalux both stick out a lot but they con't have a huge diameter.
Incidently, don't worry about vignetting to much. The 15mm Heliar vignettes worse than any lens I have every owned and yet it is correctable in photoshop with a little more noise in the corners. The Kobalux vignettes some and is easily corrected in Photoshop if you decide to even go to the trouble.
Vignetting was a major defect in the old days of film. It was not easy to correct in the darkroom. With digital, it is very easy to correct. Vignetting issues that would bother me in film, i'll live with in digital. It's a good thing too, because the nature of a digital sensor amplifies vignetting especially with regards non-retro focus wide angle designs which are the hallmark of rangefinder cameras. Leica is trying to procees the vignetting out of the lens IN the camera with firmware software communicating with the new "dot" ID system engraved on the lens. I don't think I am fully in favor of letting the software determine the amount of vignetting reduction. I prefer to do it myself in post processing. But leica is trying to appeal to the masses (the rich masses) on this issue.
Someone needs to start a digital vignetting thread on the Digital forum. As this effects both The Epson and Leica, maybe Jorge could set up a third subgroup under Digital Rangefinder.
Rex
Incidently, don't worry about vignetting to much. The 15mm Heliar vignettes worse than any lens I have every owned and yet it is correctable in photoshop with a little more noise in the corners. The Kobalux vignettes some and is easily corrected in Photoshop if you decide to even go to the trouble.
Vignetting was a major defect in the old days of film. It was not easy to correct in the darkroom. With digital, it is very easy to correct. Vignetting issues that would bother me in film, i'll live with in digital. It's a good thing too, because the nature of a digital sensor amplifies vignetting especially with regards non-retro focus wide angle designs which are the hallmark of rangefinder cameras. Leica is trying to procees the vignetting out of the lens IN the camera with firmware software communicating with the new "dot" ID system engraved on the lens. I don't think I am fully in favor of letting the software determine the amount of vignetting reduction. I prefer to do it myself in post processing. But leica is trying to appeal to the masses (the rich masses) on this issue.
Someone needs to start a digital vignetting thread on the Digital forum. As this effects both The Epson and Leica, maybe Jorge could set up a third subgroup under Digital Rangefinder.
Rex
Chaser
Well-known
ddimaria said:
I have no first hand experience but a user on flickr and i believe a member here TommyOshima, uses this combo to good effect...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tommyoshima/108479776/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tommyoshima/108479778/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tommyoshima/99174879/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tommyoshima/109499733/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tommyoshima/115069075/
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
It does stick out quite far, not being retrofocus.I would tend to believe Epson. Maybe if you grind down the flange a bit, there is about 2 mm to be gained there. Actually the CV 21 is a better lens.
Ed Schwartzreic
Well-known
It fits without problem, but vignettes really, really badly, so that much of the corners of the image are just missing. It's a no-go.
Ed
Ed
ddimaria
Well-known
Thanks all, it seems the manual and the website contradict each other.
http://www.epsonrd1.co.uk/lenses/index.html
http://www.epsonrd1.co.uk/lenses/index.html
rvaubel
Well-known
Ed
If it fits I find it hard to believe that SOME light isn't making it to the corners. After all film needs light too. My 15mm Heliar vigneetes really badly too, but I still get great images by using the vignetting sliders in CR2. I'm sure your right that the lens is unuseable with a digital camera. I've heard that the CV21 is a much better lens. My Kobalux 21mm vignettes a little but is no problem with the R-D1.
It occurred to me that my standards for vignetting in digital are much looser than in film and the wet darkroom.
Rex
If it fits I find it hard to believe that SOME light isn't making it to the corners. After all film needs light too. My 15mm Heliar vigneetes really badly too, but I still get great images by using the vignetting sliders in CR2. I'm sure your right that the lens is unuseable with a digital camera. I've heard that the CV21 is a much better lens. My Kobalux 21mm vignettes a little but is no problem with the R-D1.
It occurred to me that my standards for vignetting in digital are much looser than in film and the wet darkroom.
Rex
Ed Schwartzreic
Well-known
OK, here we go. One should not that the physical configuration of the lens affects the expsoure metering. What should reads as f/5.6 at 1/60 by the meter shows correct exposure only when the setting is f/5.6 at 1/500.
The first shot is without any vignetting correction. The second is utilizing the 12mm setting on Epson PhotoRaw.
Ed
The first shot is without any vignetting correction. The second is utilizing the 12mm setting on Epson PhotoRaw.
Ed
Attachments
Ed Schwartzreic
Well-known
rvaubel
Well-known
Ed
Now thats vignetting!! I must say the Angulon produces the worst case of vignetting this side of a knothole in a wooden fence. This is one unuseable lens!
That being said, Epsons raw converter did rescue the shot. This would have been nearly impossible on film. But all is not rosy. Not only is the noise level increased but their are also subtle color shifts in the corners
The vignetting exhibited by non-retro focus lenses is chiefly determined by the distance of the exit pupil from the focal plane. The F# has little to do with it. Post processing can do wonders but the image Ed contributed is too far gone. The results wouldnt have been so bad on film, but digital sensors are subseptable to falloff at very acute angles and no amount of microlensing is going to help.
Now thats vignetting!! I must say the Angulon produces the worst case of vignetting this side of a knothole in a wooden fence. This is one unuseable lens!
That being said, Epsons raw converter did rescue the shot. This would have been nearly impossible on film. But all is not rosy. Not only is the noise level increased but their are also subtle color shifts in the corners
The vignetting exhibited by non-retro focus lenses is chiefly determined by the distance of the exit pupil from the focal plane. The F# has little to do with it. Post processing can do wonders but the image Ed contributed is too far gone. The results wouldnt have been so bad on film, but digital sensors are subseptable to falloff at very acute angles and no amount of microlensing is going to help.
Similar threads
