Jump to content

info update request 65/3.5 black


ho_co

Recommended Posts

Info for German 65/3.5 Elmar:

 

1) shows series VII filter--should be series VI (retaining ring 14160);

 

2) should show aperture range 3.5-22.

 

Thanks.

 

Howard,

 

I think it depends whether version 1 or 2. The version 1 has a 41mm filter thread and the common thing is to get a 41 to 43 or 46 mm step up ring and use standard e43 or e46 filters - that is certainly what I do. I have a feeling that the version 2 Elmar 65 (the black finish one) has a larger filter thread.

 

I am trying to find a version 2 at the moment to replace my version 1. On the M9, the version 1 has an issue with light fall off in the corners until around f11, which is a problem for the museum archival work I use it for. It was not an issue with the crop frame M8. The re-computed version 2 is I am told, noticeably better in this aspect, with little light fall off at f5.6.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops! :o Thanks very much for the response, Wilson. I’m afraid I misled you in my confusion.

 

You’re correct about the Series VI thread: The thread of a 43mm filter fits loosely within that of the lens.

 

 

Actually, I was trying to let a Wikian know that the forum Wiki entry (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/1:3.5_/_65_Elmar-V) contains two errors and an omission, all minor (based on my 1969 sample):

 

1) The example pictured might should show the series retaining ring with which the lens was delivered.

2) F stop range should be f/3.5-22 (indeterminate in the entry).

3) Filter type should be Series VI (shown as series VII).

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!

Edited by ho_co
Link to post
Share on other sites

Howard,

 

Now you are just trying to make me jealous of your series 2 Elmar 65 ;-}} With even a nice black finish matching 16464 mount. I found just today, a UK dealer showing a picture of a series 2 Elmar for sale at a reasonable price and spent ages trying to get through to him on the phone - only to find he had posted an old picture and it was actually a chrome series 1, like the one I already have.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, Wilson, I felt guilty posting the picture after you said you're looking for one. :(

 

But I finally got around to contacting Foto Huppert two days ago for a Series VI UV/IR Cut so I can try it out on the M8, so I'm not selling yet. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, Wilson, I felt guilty posting the picture after you said you're looking for one. :(

 

But I finally got around to contacting Foto Huppert two days ago for a Series VI UV/IR Cut so I can try it out on the M8, so I'm not selling yet. :)

 

Howard,

 

I wonder if I might ask you a big favour. Could you take a couple of pictures of a pale surface at say f3.5 and f5.6 and post some corner crops. Before I spend quite a bit of money upgrading from a series 1 to 2, it would be good to know that I will achieve a significant improvement. I cannot recall if you have an M9 or not but even with an M8, I should get some idea if if take the same thing with my M8. My M9 is on holiday in Solms anyway for an adjustment of the RF vertical alignment.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wilson, I'll gladly do it, but it'll be on M8 since I don't have an M9.

 

I know nothing of the history of optical development of the lens, so I hope I can uncover something useful for you.

 

Please give me a day or so to get back to you. :o

 

Any particular size range original to try for? Book-page-size, playing-card-size, poster-size, all of the above? (I'm not sure how close the 16464 brings it.)

 

 

BTW, my M8 just returned from a rebirth of sorts at Allendale. I think all Leicas need to check with Mom occasionally. :p

Edited by ho_co
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wilson, I'll gladly do it, but it'll be on M8 since I don't have an M9.

 

I know nothing of the history of optical development of the lens, so I hope I can uncover something useful for you.

 

Please give me a day or so to get back to you. :o

 

Any particular size range original to try for? Book-page-size, playing-card-size, poster-size, all of the above? (I'm not sure how close the 16464 brings it.)

 

 

BTW, my M8 just returned from a rebirth of sorts at Allendale. I think all Leicas need to check with Mom occasionally. :p

 

Howard,

 

A lot of the archival work I do is of big old illustrated and manuscripts, so the focus distance would be about the same as poster size. For very close work, I have a Novoflex LTM/LTM bellows and a Leiel LTM to Elmar 65 adapter. In that correct colour is very important, I try to use natural north light the whole time, having tried 3600ºK daylight halogen lights and light boxes/tents with not a lot of success. At f11, it limits my working day to about 3 to 4 hours in winter. if I could use f5.6 without the vignetting/dark corners I get on the series 1 Elmar, it would add an hour onto each end of the day.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wilson—

I’m afraid this test won’t help you at all, since I’m using an M8.

 

Summary: very little noticeable difference between 3.5 and 5.6

 

Setup:

Building wall of concrete blocks and mortar, painted (off-)white.

Cloudless skylight; facing east before sun reached zenith.

Lens set manually; used camera meter each time to set shutter speed manually.

Exposure compensation set at +2 stops (maybe not a good move, but the images do not reach RGB 255,255,255; usually in the 240’s).

 

(BTW—the whitish stripe on the 16464 is an exposure adjustment guide I made to assist setting exposure in un-metered cameras.)

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I processed the same images twice through ACR.

 

First set: JPGs are made from camera DNGs at “Default” settings in “Basic” panel of ACR.

 

 

First pair of images: 65mm with 16464 racked in to its shortest, infinity position. First f/3.5; then f/5.6. ACR “Default.”

 

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!

 

 

 

 

Second pair of images: 65mm with 16464 racked out to its longest, macro position. First f/3.5; then f/5.6. ACR “Default.”

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I processed the same images twice through ACR.

 

Second set: JPGs are made from camera DNGs at “Auto” settings in “Basic” panel of ACR.

 

 

 

First pair of images: 65mm with 16464 racked in to its shortest, infinity position. First f/3.5; then f/5.6. ACR “Auto.”

 

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!

 

 

(yellow bar and dark smudges are features of the wall—see setup shot)

 

 

 

 

Second pair of images: 65mm with 16464 racked out to its longest, macro position. First f/3.5; then f/5.6. ACR “Auto.”

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is something you think I should do differently, please let me know and I’ll give it a try.

 

 

The little difference here won’t reduce your interest in the lens, but keep in mind that this is an M8.

 

I’ll ask a friend with a Canon 5D whether he has the adapters to mount the Visoflex to it. Don’t have connections to anyone with an M9, I’m afraid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Howard,

 

The first thing you need to do in ACR is check the camera callibration. Often Adobe Standard is the default; you should use camera standard for the M8 and embedded for the M9. These of course apply to .dng format.

 

Then you may want to generate custom profiles using .dng profile maker free from Adobe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is something you think I should do differently, please let me know and I’ll give it a try.

 

 

The little difference here won’t reduce your interest in the lens, but keep in mind that this is an M8.

 

I’ll ask a friend with a Canon 5D whether he has the adapters to mount the Visoflex to it. Don’t have connections to anyone with an M9, I’m afraid.

 

Howard,

 

I took some shots of a white wall with my Elmar 65 today on the M8 and as we suspected, the issue of dark corners does not rear its ugly head to any significant extent with the crop sensor, even at f3.5. The fall off must really be quite abrupt into the extreme corners on the M9 and I would guess is an indication that the Elmar 65 (at least the Mk. 1) is at about the limit of its image circle when wide open. I suppose the answer is to use the M8 for my current job and in any case, it is not as if I have an option, with my M9 in Solms at the moment.

 

Many thanks for posting those test shots.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wilson,

I have not managed to post pictures on the forum, so will try and verbally sum up my impressions.

1. I used Version 1 with slide film in the 1960ties and Version 2 after I purchased a late black version in the 1980ties.

2. Light fall off in the corners on full frame slide film was more or less equal with both versions. The major difference was a softer, though pleasing effect with Version 1, with best aperture somewhere between f8 and f11. Version 2 has higher contrast and very fine detail over nearly the whole full frame with best apertures somewhere between f 5.6 and f8.

3. My experience is on slides (mainly Kodachrome 25) and I confess that I have not used the Visoflex III and the 65 Elmars on either the M8 or M9.

Must try it out in the near future.

Have you tried using a Focotar 2 or an EL Nikkor enlarging lens for your work?

Teddy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wilson,

I have not managed to post pictures on the forum, so will try and verbally sum up my impressions.

1. I used Version 1 with slide film in the 1960ties and Version 2 after I purchased a late black version in the 1980ties.

2. Light fall off in the corners on full frame slide film was more or less equal with both versions. The major difference was a softer, though pleasing effect with Version 1, with best aperture somewhere between f8 and f11. Version 2 has higher contrast and very fine detail over nearly the whole full frame with best apertures somewhere between f 5.6 and f8.

3. My experience is on slides (mainly Kodachrome 25) and I confess that I have not used the Visoflex III and the 65 Elmars on either the M8 or M9.

Must try it out in the near future.

Have you tried using a Focotar 2 or an EL Nikkor enlarging lens for your work?

Teddy

 

Teddy,

 

Many thanks for the information. My main problem is with both light fall off and softness in the corners. I can either get round this by using as you say, smaller apertures or just sticking to the M8 where it is not a problem but with some of these old books, particularly the Victorian pressed flower books being huge, the Elmar 65 needs the full frame even with my very large Manfrotto 074 tripod at max height. I suppose I could mount a Focotar or Nikkor LTM39 lens either with an LTM to LM adapter direct onto the Viso or by using my Novoflex LTM/LTM bellows, although even at full collapsed, the focus distance tends to be quite short. With my LEIEL adapter and the Elmar 65, furthest focus is about 30cm. I am sure I can borrow one of these lenses from my friendly local pro camera repair shop to have a try. Elmar 65 V2's are now very difficult to find or expensive.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wilson,

Have you tried either the lens head of the 90/2.8 Elmarit, or the more expensive 90mm 3 element Elmar? The lens head of the 135 Tele Elmar is also an excellent lens. The longer focal lengths might be useful for your purposes and also cheaper (except for the 3 element Elmar 90).

I have used an 90 mm Apo Rodagon for copying work as well.

Hope this is helpful.

Teddy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wilson--Here's one more rather inconclusive batch which supports your feeling that the light falloff has a fairly steep curve toward the corners.

 

 

A friend with 5D helped with these.

 

Setup: White poster board; south light through window, skylight, no sun.

5D set to ISO 100, auto exposure, -1.33 stop exposure compensation, AWB. CR2 images processed in Bridge CS4, with “Auto” in Basic panel.

 

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!

 

 

 

First pair of images: 65mm with 16464 racked in to its shortest, infinity position. First f/3.5; then f/5.6. ACR “Auto.”

 

 

 

 

Second pair of images: 65mm with 16464 racked out to its longest, macro position. First f/3.5; then f/5.6. ACR “Auto.”

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Comment:

 

5D is full frame but doesn’t have M9’s offset microlenses, so the M9 may perform better.

 

 

Numbers that may help:

 

Lens racked in to infinity:

f/3.5 RGB values at center ca 188; RGB values at upper right corner ca 112

ratio at f/3.5 corner to center: 28:47

f/5.6 RGB values at center ca 183; RGB values at upper right corner ca 140

ratio at f/5.6 corner to center: 35:45.75

 

 

Lens racked out for closest focus of 16464:

f/3.5 RGB values at center ca 180; RGB values at upper right corner ca 128

ratio at f/3.5 corner to center: 32:45

f/5.6 RGB values at center ca 182; RGB values at upper right corner ca 163

ratio at f/5.6 corner to center: 40.75:45.5

 

 

 

 

 

Peculiarity:

In this test, my friend’s 5D shows a very minimal amount of the red-edge syndrome.

 

In the first image, f/3.5 at furthest focus:

RGB values upper left: 123, 118, 119

RGB values lower left: 120, 113, 121

RGB values upper right: 111, 109, 112

RGB values lower right: 91, 92, 104

RGB values center: 187, 186, 188

 

In the fourth image, f/5.6 at closest focus:

RGB values upper left: 170, 169, 171

RGB values lower left: 161, 158, 162

RGB values upper right: 163, 161, 163

RGB values lower right: 158, 158, 164

RGB values center: 183, 182, 182

 

 

Lens definitely has some falloff in the corners at 5.6. :(

 

 

 

Good luck. Let me know if I can help any more.

 

Seems Teddy is your "Go-to Guy" on this one.

Edited by ho_co
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wilson,

Have you tried either the lens head of the 90/2.8 Elmarit, or the more expensive 90mm 3 element Elmar? The lens head of the 135 Tele Elmar is also an excellent lens. The longer focal lengths might be useful for your purposes and also cheaper (except for the 3 element Elmar 90).

I have used an 90 mm Apo Rodagon for copying work as well.

Hope this is helpful.

Teddy

 

Teddy,

 

For the very small stuff I have been using the 135 T-E head on a 16464K, which is brilliant. By far the sharpest copies to date with a Visoflex. My current issue for copying these enormous books (about 1.5 M x 1m per page) is I need wide, for which the 65 Elmar is just about wide enough. I have actually been using either my 50 Planar or 35 ASPH Summilux not on the Visoflex. For copying, the Planar with its ultra high contrast is excellent but of course, from the parallax POV, using a Visoflex makes things easier. I do have a 90 Elmarit-M but it is the final version, which does not have a demountable head. My camera repair man thinks he may have a Schneider-Betavaron (spelling??) zoom LTM enlarging lens tucked away somewhere, which might be the perfect answer.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...