Jump to content

90mm & 135mm Difficulty in Use


dolina

Recommended Posts

I find the eyepiece magnifiers a wash. What they add in magnification they subtract in loss of brightness and contrast. I do not find rangefinder focusing those lenses problematic, assuming they are properly calibrated. It was a smidgen easier on the .72x film bodies than the digitals which are .68x. And of course the .85x and M3 (.91x) are easiest of all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Depth of field is very limited with these long lenses, especially with near objects, as in portraiture. Accuracy of the rangefinder in the M240 has been improved but great care is still needed to focus accurately on, say, the subject's eyes.

 

I have tried both 1.25 and 1.4 magnifiers with some success, but since the arrival of the M240 the EVF 2 is my preferred tool for portraits and other relatively close-up shots. Using the EVF 2 on a handheld M240, I find it easy to obtain sharp, well-focussed pictures with both the Macro-M 90mm f.4 and the Apo-Telyt 135mm f.4.

 

One problem is that the Apo-Telyt 135 is heavy enough to make focussing on a handheld camera something of a struggle. But this is easily solved with a decent tripod.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes a good lens calibration is of utmost importance (beware of second hand pre-digital lenses from this viewpoint) and the M240's EVF does help a lot with or without image magnification but one does not have to use lenses at full aperture when there is enough light around needless to say. At f/4 or f/5.6, focussing problems are negligible generally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the eyepiece magnifiers a wash. What they add in magnification they subtract in loss of brightness and contrast. I do not find rangefinder focusing those lenses problematic, assuming they are properly calibrated. It was a smidgen easier on the .72x film bodies than the digitals which are .68x. And of course the .85x and M3 (.91x) are easiest of all.
Exactly my experience.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi All,

 

I've been reading up on the 90mm and 135mm and constantly noticing reviewers bringing up the difficulty of using/focusing it.

 

Is this really the case? If so, why?

 

I am looking to get a 90mm and 135mm.

 

On which camera do you plan to use those focals ? If it is one of the last FF digital (M9 MM M240) focusing CAN be critical but, supposed that RF coupling is correct, is just a matter of learning curve ... with classic RF, you have a frame that is "little" in comparision with the RF patch (of course, most for 135) and with some subjects one can get accustomed to the fact that sometime you must focus at a detail that is not coincident with the RF patch... this of course can happen with any focal, but with a 135 is more delicate to manage (a small movement alters significantly the framed image) : anyway don't worry and, simply, start using your 90/135 at "safe" f/stops... I'm a longtime users of Tele Elmar 135... and still, if I haven't much time to manage with care my taking, use it at f8 (with the M240 and its excellent ISO latitude, isn't a problem) : then there will be time to enjoy finely tuned OOF effects with a 90 at f2... ;)

 

Me too have found the eyepiece magnifiers practically non-useful... bought years ago a 1,35x... and even don't remember exactly where it is now...

Edited by luigi bertolotti
Link to post
Share on other sites

Telephoto lenses are challenging on a rangefinder camera. Only the M-240 with EVF make it a relatively easier task. Otherwise, consider getting a 1.4x viewfinder eyepiece magnifier. And practise; practise and more practise!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about 135mm, but I have tested a number of 90 mm lenses during the last couple weeks on my M-P

 

Was exclusively using rangefinder to focus.

 

I had no problems whatsoever to get very sharp images - that also includes close-up portraits where I focused on eye(s) / eye lashes...

 

I liked the results so much, that I decided to buy 90 / 2,5 Summarit.

Not a single thought about possible focusing problems crossed my mind.

 

Sidenote: I don't know if anything is changed on M240 comparing to M9, but I feel the rangefinder is way more reliable and precise

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

I've been reading up on the 90mm and 135mm and constantly noticing reviewers bringing up the difficulty of using/focusing it.

 

Is this really the case? If so, why?

 

I am looking to get a 90mm and 135mm.

 

Hi,

 

This is my personal experience, other may have other experiences.

 

I an using two 90mm (f/2.0 and f/4) and one 135 (f/4). I find all very difficult to focus accurate on people/moving targets because of the RF. The EVF is good for critical framing, but I find it next to useless for focusing on people/moving targets due to delay and to low resolution.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I have and use -- occasionally -- a 135 Elmarit on my M9. In film days I tended to only use it with my M3, almost never on the M4 or M6. Since I used to print only to about 8 by 12 inches there never was any issues. Now that I print much larger, getting well focused images at f/2.8 with the M9 is challenging, less so at smaller apertures. If I did not already have this lens I would not be looking to buy it. Long lens equals use of DSLRs. I do regret selling my tele-elmar years ago, it was much lighter that the Elmarit and much easier to carry and use.

Jean-Michel

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find no issues with the 90/2.8 and generally little trouble with the 75/2. However I've had and used 90/2 and 135/4 and found a greater 'loss' rate due to focus issues (using RF focusing only).

 

I suspect that accurate focus on the longer and/or faster lenses depends on a lot of things including eyesight, contrast, subject matter, motion, and more. Experience no doubt plays a big part too.

 

For myself I've decided that the limit is a 90/2.8 on the M8 which isn't bad. I would like but will not go for either a 135 or a 90/2 and I wonder about the 75/1.4 (not that I can find one at an 'acceptable to me' price!) because I think that, for me personally, they are on the edge of viability (I do print a fair size sometimes).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the 1.25x magnifier with fast 50s and up.

 

16178514772_47283446d4_o.jpgSkate and Fun

 

Nikkor 8.5cm F2, wide-open on the M Monochrom. ISO10000. With a lot of sports, you at a farther distance to the subject. So the range of focus is more narrow.

 

For dim lighting, talk the subject into wearing Rangefinder Friendly colors.

 

 

15897441469_07bd38d9e3_o.jpgSkate and Fun

 

Canon 100/2, wide-open, M9 at ISO5000 eqv (2500 -1ev, pushed in post), 1/60th sec.

Edited by Lenshacker
Link to post
Share on other sites

For myself I've decided that the limit is a 90/2.8 on the M8 which isn't bad. I would like but will not go for either a 135 or a 90/2 and I wonder about the 75/1.4.

90/2.8 is almost the limit for crop bodies like the M8 w/o magnification. The critical aperture is about f/2.4 for 90mm lenses due to the crop factor. As for 135mm lenses, i would not expect high hit rates below f/5.6 w/o magnification.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used Leicas since 1968, and have always preferred them for normal to wide use, and used SLRs for long lenses. 90 seemed about equal on both, but 135 is clearly easier with an SLR. I now use an A7 for my long lenses as a digital replacement for my SL or R4.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't so much the focusing that I find difficult but composition within the frame that makes me shy away from the 135mm with anything other than an EVF or Live View. The frame lines are so indeterminate that composition towards the edge of the frame is hit and miss, and through necessity I shoot at least two or three 'bankers' with the main subject plonked square in the centre of the frame just to be sure something will be usable. I find this far more of a compromise than the inevitable lower hit rate with focusing a 135mm.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from Alfons Scholz' book on the M6 and shows the aperture you mathematically need to be accurate with the rangefinder given the width of basis of the optical triangle involved, which is broader in the M3. So you can see that the 75lux, 90cron and 135Elmar are in fact out of reach when used wide open.

That said, I find in practice not so much missers as this table could suggest, using a 1.40 loupe on my viewfinder.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from Alfons Scholz' book on the M6 and shows the aperture you mathematically need to be accurate with the rangefinder given the width of basis of the optical triangle involved, which is broader in the M3. So you can see that the 75lux, 90cron and 135Elmar are in fact out of reach when used wide open.

Would be interesting to know which formulas and values those figures are based upon.

According to the formula b = e*f2/k*z where b is the critical RF base length, e the visual acuity (0.0003), f the focal length, k the aperture and z the circle of confusion (0.03 for FF), those three lenses can be focussed accurately at full aperture on full frame Ms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...