• #3734
    Jack MacD

    Thanks Josh and David, the 24mm arrived in Arizona today.

    This 24mm (18.6mm equivalent) is allowing me to capture images that required a merge of 35mm images in the past.
    And merging when there are buildings has problems resulting in curved buildings, which can only be corrected with CS6 and an hour of post processing.

    The lens comes with a rear cap that screams “update your firmware” in orange. So I did.
    The size of the lens is smaller than I anticipated, even after reading that it was like the 35mm. Lens shade is fine. Stays on fine to protect the bulging glass as well as acting as a sun shade.

    I will be using the 24mm for interiors later, but today I just wanted to see how the corners held up. Amazingly excellent. I was shooting handheld today, and learned that even a super wide lens needs more than f5,6 for full depth of focus. I will post some more as I do more work.

    So far, it is more than I expected. My WATE on the M9 will now get some rest. A super wide lens is not for everyone, But it is for me.

    These were shot at the Arizona Biltmore. Yes I am in Arizona, as Wisconsin had snow today.

    Forgive me if you see some dust spots that I missed before this posting.

    Attached files

  • #3735
    Jack MacD

    One more just for Josh who apparently likes car photos. 96% full frame, f6.8

    Attached files

  • #3736
    Roger

    Jack

    Very nice ! The S lenses really do seem to be at a level of perfection I never seen in any system .

  • #3737
    Pete Walentin

    Thanks for posting these Jack.

    I would love to see some made with a tripod.

    Cheers,
    Pete

  • #3739
    Jack MacD

    OK Pete, here are the tripod shots at f11 or more.
    Most full frame, unless I needed to slightly straighten. One is shown both before crop and after.
    Leveling remains a challenge even with bubble levels. The S would help right?

    The very edge of the corners seems ever so slightly a bit soft when pixel peeping. So it would be visible in 6 foot enlargements? So would the pixels.

    Josh asked how I liked shooting with the lens. It's a joy to shoot things that I had to use the WATE on the M9 for before. And of course seeing the exact image with an SLR allows for a better shot too. The width of the image allows me to shoot as if I would have a 35mm shift lens, by shooting level, but cropping as if I were shifting. The third shot will be cropped from the bottom, I include the full file for Pete. The last two shots demonstrate the pre and post crop “shift” technique. Spare me the news that Leica will introduce a tilt-shift wide angle.

    Attached files

  • #3740
    Jack MacD

    Here is the third photo cropped to final. It is a 48″ wide photo on paper.

    Attached files

  • #3741
    Pete Walentin

    Hi Jack,

    Thanks a lot. 🙂

    Looks pretty impressive. Are these out of camera (except of the last one) and if not, what have you done to the files in terms of sharpening and lens corrections?

    It looks to me that you already have at f/11 some diffraction, but the performance is still pretty nice.

    Looking forward to more pictures with this lens when you are on the road in sunny Arizona.

    And by the way I would love to have a short TS lens too. 🙂

    Cheers,
    Pete

  • #3742
    David Farkas

    Jack,

    Great stuff. Thanks for posting.

    We haven't had an opportunity to really test the lens in real-use scenarios. Your architectural shots speak volumes on the performance of this very wide S lens. We are expecting to have a 24mm on our Florida Keys and Everglades workshop in a couple weeks, along with the 30-90mm. Hopefully, Josh and I will get a chance to shoot a little with the lens ourselves.

  • #3744
    Jack MacD

    Pete,
    There was 25% sharpening applied, plus some exposure work in the previous images.

    Here is an untouched out of camera shot, nothing applied. Followed by the cropped and spotted and sharpened and exposure adjusted, etc.

    Attached files

  • #3751
    Mark Gowin

    Jack, you are making the 24mm look pretty darn good.

  • #3761
    Jack MacD

    I was doing some interior work with the 24mm and decided to compare it with my 35mm.

    This first shot is the field of view with my 35mm lens, shot from the same tripod position as the second photo.

    The second shot is the cropped result of using the 24mm at if it sere a shift lens.

    Attached files

  • #3762
    Jack MacD

    This third shot shows the field of view of the 35mm superimposed over the full 24mm image.
    I have also moved the field of view to the corner to show that the 24 gives more than twice the area than is captured by the 35mm.

    Attached files

  • #3765
    fotografz

    Thanks for doing this Jack. Very helpful.

    -Marc

  • #3796
    Jack MacD

    I had said that I was tired of merging three 35mm shots to get to what the 24 gives me.
    But the 24 gives me 88 degrees, not 180 degrees. Today I was trying to capture 180 degrees with three 24mm shots. This could work for landscapes, but with architecture it's a bit of a problem. If you want to see more detail of the steps, just ask.

    Attached files

  • #3797
    rsmphoto

    Jack,

    You might give the Hasselblad HTS a try. Granted it would make your 24mm a 36mm, but you'd be able to maintain a rectilinear image over three merged shots. I use it regularly with my S2 and unlike my H body, it allows (most of the time, for me at least) auto focus to work as well.

    Richard

  • #3799
    Jack MacD

    Thanks Richard,
    I really don't foresee a need to merge 24mm shots. I took that as a record keeping shot of a location, and was curious how it would merge.

    I shot this photo with the 24 to check on the distortion of the 24mm vs the 18mm of the WATE on the M9. The WATE is a zoom, so no surprise that the prime is superior.

    Attached files

  • #3800
    Jack MacD

    This is the full frame of the 24mm on top matched for size with the full frame of the 18mm of the WATE shown below the 24mm. Having the plane of the sensor nudge a half an inch or so in location may make more a difference than 18mm vs 18.6mm. While they were both on the same tripod sequentially, I was not as precise as I wanted to be. I used the same leveling tools on both cameras and there was a 0.7 degree difference that I straightened for these images.

    I did this to confirm that I can sell the WATE should I want to.

    Does the new S have really precise leveling meters?

    Attached files

  • #3802
    RVB

    Jack MacD;4468 wrote: This is the full frame of the 24mm on top matched for size with the full frame of the 18mm of the WATE shown below the 24mm. Having the plane of the sensor nudge a half an inch or so in location may make more a difference than 18mm vs 18.6mm. While they were both on the same tripod sequentially, I was not as precise as I wanted to be. I used the same leveling tools on both cameras and there was a 0.7 degree difference that I straightened for these images.

    I did this to confirm that I can sell the WATE should I want to.

    Does the new S have really precise leveling meters?

    Hi Jack,are you sure the S24 is 18.6m equivalent?Is the multiplication factor not .8 which would make it 19.2mm?

  • #3806
    Jack MacD

    RVB,
    Yes .8 times 24 is indeed 19.2 not 18.6.
    This was a test for Josh and David and either:
    1. neither saw my error in reporting or
    2. were too nice to think they should correct the error, or
    3. starting to worry that I would want to return the lens to Solms to have them make it a 23.25 mm.
    4. Too busy preparing for the Everglades trip to notice.
    5. Told me the number is 18.6 until after the price increase and then it goes to 19.2.

    The answer is #4.

  • #3808
    RVB

    Jack MacD;4479 wrote: RVB,
    Yes .8 times 24 is indeed 19.2 not 18.6.
    This was a test for Josh and David and either:
    1. neither saw my error in reporting or
    2. were too nice to think they should correct the error, or
    3. starting to worry that I would want to return the lens to Solms to have them make it a 23.25 mm.
    4. Too busy preparing for the Everglades trip to notice.
    5. Told me the number is 18.6 until after the price increase and then it goes to 19.2.

    The answer is #4.

    I like #5 most.. 😀

    Robert

  • #3821
    David Farkas

    Jack MacD;4479 wrote: RVB,
    Yes .8 times 24 is indeed 19.2 not 18.6.
    This was a test for Josh and David and either:
    1. neither saw my error in reporting or
    2. were too nice to think they should correct the error, or
    3. starting to worry that I would want to return the lens to Solms to have them make it a 23.25 mm.
    4. Too busy preparing for the Everglades trip to notice.
    5. Told me the number is 18.6 until after the price increase and then it goes to 19.2.

    The answer is #4.

    Jack,

    #4 is the correct answer.

    We just finished our workshop tonight. What a great time! We lucked out with the weather and the clouds for just about every shoot.

  • #3825
    Mark Gowin

    Jack,

    You should have joined us on the Everglades trip. It was the perfect location for the 24mm. I gotta get one.

    Mark

  • #3876
    Jack MacD

    This is a landscape using the 24. This is a 2.5 to 1 crop of the slightly vertical shifted full frame. I encourage you to examine the detail. This is a test shot of an eventual enlargement that will go over six feet wide. The shot was taken out of a window that precluded the use of a tripod. I shot it at 1/250 braced, but when one enlarges it to this size, I think on the reshoot I will up the shutter speed.

    Attached files

  • #3911
    ddanois

    Hi Jack,

    I like this image!

    What are you noticing about the 24 compared to the other S lenses? I'm seeing fairly soft corners at 3.5 compared to 5.6 with my 24mm lens.

    My comparison is my 30mm which is amazingly sharp wide open at 2.8.

    Thanks in advance for the input.

    Derek

  • #3912
    Jack MacD

    Derek,
    Sorry to be slow in responding, but I am off shooting in Tent Rocks New Mexico.
    In order to answer your question, I had to shoot some tests at f3.5 to see if the corners went soft. Yes they do a bit under huge enlargement.
    I never have shot wide-open but now I will know what to expect. f5.6 was only shot so I could freeze the bike rider. Normally I shoot f9 or f11.

    The first and second are twisting the horizon and then cropping close so I could get detail in the corners.

    The last photo is what I was what I was working toward. Couldn't shoot this with a merge very easily?

    Jack

    Attached files

  • #3913
    ddanois

    Jack,

    Thanks for the reply and the confirmation effort.

    I would agree with you that my typical use of this lens would be between f5.6 and f11 so it's not much of a practical issue for me (f8-f11 are amazingly sharp edge-to-edge).

    For a 19mm equivalent lens, it's quite an accomplishment on Leica's part.

    Thanks again,

    Derek

  • #3915
    Jack MacD

    True,
    When I choose to use f3.5 it is to blur the background so soft corners would not be noticed, nor any issue.
    Jack

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.