[Leica] M Lenses on GF-1

[henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)]

The vignetting of the 45-200 is due to the attempt by Panasonic to 
keep the lens as small as possible, so vignetting appears at wider 
apertures due to cutoff of off-axis rays. If the vignetting were due 
to light rays hitting the sensor at a too steep angle, the aperture 
wouldn't make a difference. Also the latter is an issue with shorter 
lenses where the rear exit pupil is too close to the sensor. Not an 
issue with the 45-200.

As I mentioned before, the vignetting doesn't bother me since the 
lens is only for digital use, and the software that I use certainly 
has no problems fixing the vignetting if so desire.

BTW, that Olympus claim is not true; I'm not sure they actually said 
that. Their lenses are 'more telecentric' than those of most other 
manufacturers; true telecentricity causes so many problems that it's 
really not worth it except for certain industrial uses.



>Is the vignetting due to the light rays hitting it at less than a 
>perpendicular angle? One of Olympus's big selling points on their 
>lenses is that the light path is exactly parallel to the APS-sized 
>sensor behind the lens.
>
>Jeffery
>
>
>On Apr 14, 2010, at 3:05 PM, David Rodgers wrote:
>
>>  I don't doubt what you're saying. I'm just a bit mystified how a lens
>>  can vignette on a sensor that's half the size of film that it was
>>  designed to cover. That hasn't been my experience with M lenses on Micro
>>  Four Thirds. I actually have to use Lightroom to add a little forced
>>  vignetting because in many cases I like that look.
>>
>>  I'm also perplexed at how Contax G lenses can be materially better on
>>  Micro Four Thirds than are Leica M lenses, or even CV lenses for that
>>  matter. While I haven't used all on Micro Four Thirds I have used them
>>  all on film and for the most part they're all pretty good. Thus I'm
>>  curious as to why the performance would be so different on Micro Four
>>  Thirds. What kind of adapters are you using?
>>
>>  The main issues I see in using Lumix lenses versus Leica M lenses on the
>>  GF-1 is that Lumix lenses have AF and Leica M lenses don't. It's easy to
>>  miss focus, particularly with the longer lenses wide open. A focus
>>  assist LED in the viewfinder would be a nice feature to have.
>>
>>  Dave R
>>
>>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: lug-bounces+drodgers=casefarms.com at leica-users.org
>>  [mailto:lug-bounces+drodgers=casefarms.com at leica-users.org] On Behalf 
>> Of
>>  Simon Ogilvie
>>  Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 3:03 PM
>>  To: lug at leica-users.org
>>  Subject: Re: [Leica] M Lenses on GF-1
>>
>>  I've used a variety of Leica and Voigtlander M lenses on a G1, and
>>  also a couple of Contax G lenses (45/2 and 90/2.8).  Without exception
>>  I found the M lenses disappointing with either smearing, vignetting or
>>  other faults.  The Contax G lenses however are superb on the micro 4/3
>>  format and I much prefer the 90 to the 90 Summicron and the 45 to my
>>  (now sold) 50 Summilux.
>>
>>  I've also been a bit disappointed with the performance of the
>>  Panasonic 45-200.  I haven't checked but it's possible most of the
>>  shots I've taken have been at or close to full aperture, so the
>>  vignetting at the long end is very noticeable.  It also doesn't appear
>>  very sharp at the long end either.  Maybe the upcoming 100-300 will be
>>  better - I hope so.
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Leica Users Group.
>>  See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Leica Users Group.
>>  See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information

-- 

    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw at archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com