Jump to content

M9 - new user: lens and camera questions


chrismuc

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I decided to join the Leica M rangefinder experience and bought 2nd hand a M9 (steel grey :-) and a M 50f1.4 asph.. The stuff should arrive tomorrow, I will take my time over the weekend to examine that fabulous combo. I am looking for very good wide angle options and regarding that I have some questions:

 

35mm

I first considered the actual M 35f2 asph. but that seems to be optically inferior to the M 35f1.4 asph. FLE so I would consider the f1.4 version, even if f2 speed would be ok for me for a 35mm lens.

- is the M 35f1.4 asph. FLE sharper at f2 and f2.8 than the M 35f2 asph.?

- can it be confirmed that the M 35f1.4 asph. FLE does not show any focus shift (in contrary to the non-FLE version)?

- is the M 35f1.4 asph. FLE 100% free of corner color cast if the correct in-camera lens coding is switched on?

- is it true that the in-camera lens coding is also applied to the dng file, so the file should be neutral if opened in Photoshop CS6 with latest ACR?

- the Zeiss ZM 35f1.4 also has an excellent reputation: is it better/equivalent/worse reg. corner sharpness at f 1.4 and f2 compared to the Leica M 35f1.4 asph. FLE?

- what is the best lens coding for the Zeiss ZM 35f1.4 to get rid of eventual color cast?

 

24mm

I want to try to use a 24mm lens without an external viewfinder, just using the visible area of the rangefinder viewfinder

I don't need a fast lens for such very wide angle of view, so I consider the M 24f3.8 asph. which is considered to be optically excellent

- is the M 24f3.8 100% free of corner color cast if the correct in-camera lens coding is switched on?

 
generally
In case that the focus accuracy with the double image is not perfect, is there the possibility to adjust it at the lens and/or at the camera manually with a screwdriver or other tool w/o sending camera and lens(es) to Leitz Wetzlar?
 
sensor corrosion
The sensor of my new M9 is not replaced but ok/clean according the first owner. But that corrosion problem might occur later. Does Leitz offer to replace the sensor free of charge any time later and do they have enough sensors with new Schott glasses on stock to replace all sold M9, M9P and M-E camera sensors (not like with M8 where at a certain time no replacement sensors were available)?
 
Many thanks, Christoph
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cristoph

 

Can I suggest that you search through this forum where you will find numerous and very extensive answers to ALL your questions, as to reiterate them would result in a massive post.

 

In general though:

 

Both the 35/1.4 FLE and 35/2 Asph are superb lenses - both will produce superb images. Performance differences exist but are not great and in practical image taking terms neither will dissatisfy - personally I have the 35/1.4 pre-FLE which I am more than satisfied with despite all its apparent shortcoming. IMO the difference between them is more about one having a faster aperture than their (high) performance levels.

 

Colour casts are minimised with 6-bit coded lenses - whether any are 100% free of colour casts will probably depend on many factors including (in my experience) exposure and any consequent adjustment made in software, but again with current lenses its really not a significant problem unless you are being extraordinarily picky. Obviously Leica has optimised correction for its own lenses but there are many satisfied users of Zeiss and other lenses here on the forum.

 

Leica undertake to replace corroded sensors - only they will be able to tell you what this means, but again I have no worries on this score and may have a sensor which looks as though it might need replacement. Leica have offered to pick my camera up and check it but I'm living with it until I can be sure that I have sufficient concerns to actually get it checked (in London or in Germany). Until then I am happy to use it and spot out the few potential marks in Photoshop. Its all too easy to worry about such things when you should be actually enjoying using the camera.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

35 2.0 ASPH is a really nice 35 mm 2.0.   I tried them all.   No you not get perfect corners at 2.0,  but that really is not important generally.  4 or 5.6 gives me very fine corners in landscape.  FLE is more expensive and much larger and has weird changing  depth of field issues the Summicron does not have.  The depth issues bother me far more than a bit less, if any, resolution loss in the very corners. 

 

24 3.8 ASPH is the best 24 I ever used.  There is no permanence difference 3.8 to 8.5 where diffraction starts showing.   

 

You are pushing the viewfinder usability.  

 

28 2.8 ASPH is a fine lens

 

All these have good contrast, good micro contrast, & minimal to no distortion.   Buy any and be pleased remembering nothing man made is perfect. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto tobey bilek on the Elmar-M 24mm f/3.8 ASPH. It's a super performing lens. 

 

I've tried several 35mm lenses. I'm more into rendering qualities than ultimate sharpness and contrast—the latter two are a given with nearly any modern M-mount 35mm lens. The one I've settled on is a 1972 Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2. I just had DAG modify its base flange so it's now six-bit coded. It's a fantastic lens ... soft and glowy with lovely fine detail rendering wide open (almost like having a sharp f/2 lens with a Zeiss Softar filter on it) and razor sharp/contrasty two stops down. It is the lens that I default to whenever I pick up the M-P, and it worked beautifully on the M9 as well before that. 

 

My latest with it: 

 

24136565392_06a86af0bf_o.jpg

Leica M-P + Summilux 35mm v2

ISO 200 @ f/1.4 @ 1/250
Edited by ramarren
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thx guys.

I will consider again the M 35f2 asph.. Smaller, cheaper and also exc. corner sharpness stopped down.

I received the M9 and 50 lens. Very nice:-)

First thing my wife mentioned is how noisy the shutter is (I tried all modes). Actually true, if compared to modern mirror less cameras like Sony A7RII or Fuji X-T1. The latter I often use in classical concerts (for example with M135f3.4 Apo) which is super silent and gives great results.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have both 35/2 asph summicron and 35/2 series 4 (last pre-asph) summicron. The asph is very slightly sharper in the corners at f2, otherwise performance is similar. I love the rendering of the s4 and now use the asph for 'things', and the s4 for people.

 

I have also kept my (last pre asph 90mm/2) summicron for much the same reasons.

 

Check these lenses out, you may like them and save some money.

 

In real photography (not test charts) , I so rarely have anything in the corners in the plane of focus that I discount small differences in that area of performance.

 

This of course is my opinion only

 

Welcome to Leica Photography.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I decided to join the Leica M rangefinder experience and bought 2nd hand a M9 (steel grey :-) and a M 50f1.4 asph.. The stuff should arrive tomorrow, I will take my time over the weekend to examine that fabulous combo. I am looking for very good wide angle options and regarding that I have some questions:

 

35mm

I first considered the actual M 35f2 asph. but that seems to be optically inferior to the M 35f1.4 asph. FLE so I would consider the f1.4 version, 

 

24mm

I want to try to use a 24mm lens without an external viewfinder, just using the visible area of the rangefinder viewfinder

I don't need a fast lens for such very wide angle of view, so I consider the M 24f3.8 asph. which is considered to be optically excellent

- is the M 24f3.8 100% free of corner color cast if the correct in-camera lens coding is switched on?

 
generally
In case that the focus accuracy with the double image is not perfect, is there the possibility to adjust it at the lens and/or at the camera manually with a screwdriver or other tool w/o sending camera and lens(es) to Leitz Wetzlar?
 
Many thanks, Christoph

 

 

Christoph,

 

I always marvel at questions that come up like yours.  Why do you think that any of the things you've asked about (except maybe the sensor issue) are important in the least?  What has sent you down that path?Not to sound like the grumpy old guy I'm apparently turning into, but you've been reading WAY too much and not shooting nearly enough.   

 

Lens test charts and "optically superior" lenses don't make a "hoot in hell" when it comes to imaging in the real world, especially if you're shooting at f/4 and higher anyway.   Some of the best images ever made have been made with un-coated, or single-coated, hand-ground lenses on film of questionable provenance under abysmal field conditions.  Sharpness and aberration correction comparisons just don't mean much in strong image.   I really don't know how they came to be SO important to people in places like this.  After forty-five years of being active in photography, my advice to you is to buy the best-corrected, largest aperture lenses you can afford, and then go use them and don't sweat the small stuff.  What IS important is making strong images, and you can do that regardless of the make and model of lenses you use. 

 

Lens chart tests shot on bolted-down cameras in controlled lab settings with everything measured to the angstrom give engineers an idea about how their designs perform when compared to their last designs.  it's wonderful data for them to have and I appreciate that they do it.  Unfortunately, in the consumer's hands that information leads to making mountains out of molehills; tempests in a teapot if you will.  If you're a gearhead and angstroms matter, or if you measure your self-worth in the most lpm of resolution money can buy, then read no further.  If, OTOH, you're a photographer, then you might want to read on.   

 

Whether you have THIS 35mm lens or THAT 35mm lens will not limit your photography simply because one is infinitesimally "optically superior" to the other.  There are good reasons for lens selection;  among them maximum aperture, coatings, filter size, and carry weight.  But the limiting factor in your photography is NOT the lenses' test chart results or whether or not they color fringe or lack sharpness at the corners; the limiting factor is shooting in the real world.    If you're hand-holding your camera, lens chart testing is moot.  If you're focusing using a rangefinder instead of a ground glass with magnifier,  lens chart testing is moot.   If you're shooting a camera with a digital sensor, lens color fringing is a non-issue.

 

Now, that said, it's good to buy modern lenses as they have much to offer in glass composition, coatings and optical design.  But I defy you (or anyone else) to look at any image online (or printed) and tell me definitively what camera or lens or even medium it was shot on.   And frankly, if you're concerned about the corner sharpness of an image when it's displayed, then it's not a very strong image, is it?

 

The best camera and lens advice is still just "f/8 and be there."   All you need is gear that's competent enough to do that, and anything manufactured by Leica, or with an M mount is competent to make those images for you. 

  • Like 17
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravo! Very well articulated. I am coming from a similar background as yourself from what you expressed and the salient points of what you expressed are quite pertinent. I also realize your comments were tailored for thr OP. As is often the case there are exceptions and these differ for some with regards to their partiular applications.

 

I was going to cite some of mine but I don't want to turn this thread into debating the merrits of an certain images being sharp right into the corners, or optical requirements for printing large format prints and how certain performance character of lenses use might impact their application for these and other objectives.

 

Point being is your advice is excellent and although we sometimes seek what is the best, we often miss whats most important, namely concentrating on image capture and the elements that go into capturing an image with impact and merrit.

 

Dave (D&A)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm using a Zeiss Biogon-C 35 2.8 with my M9 and with my M2 and M4 before it. It's an amazing tiny lens and as good as anything I've used including 35 iv, asph, pre asph summilux. Don't get hung up on fast lenses if you think they make better pictures, they don't. I've just had a trip to Thailand and took the 35 and 50 Zeiss with me and probably used the 50 twice!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

buy the best -  at least you would not be able to complain about poor gear. There will be no excuses for bad shots:)

 

Yup and the 'sharpness' questions will still pile up on the forum ad infinitum.

 

Someone should invent a reverse adaptor for the M Mount so you can mount the lens to the camera via the filter thread. It would probably get funded on Kickstarter too.  :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The beauty of the Leica M is all the different lens selections you have and sharpness is not the ultimate consideration for me but it's each lens's unique character in how it renders. From the latest modern master pieces to the wonderful Mandler designs to even using the "ancient" screw mount lenses made long ago. The M mount is special along with the simplicity of the camera. Sharpness?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The M9 shoots most M glass very well, but a few lenses are really magic on the CCD:

 

you have one, the 50/1.4 asph, and the other is the 28 Summicron.

 

I think it's been covered, but the FLE has the advantage of better close up performance, and that's it. Certainly it's an unbelievable lens. The new ZM 35/1.4 is next best, but big with a few quirks. I'd like to own a FLE but instead I use the ZM 35/2 in daylight, and the CV 35/1.2 at night. The M9 loves fast glass in low light:

 

24733795309_3ece360dcb_b.jpg

Contemplation by unoh7, on Flickr

These can be found as low as 600USD, and let you shoot at f/1.2 with a bit of DOF. Yes in the dim, 1.2 is alot better than 1.4 on the M9.

 

As said elsewhere, the 24 SEM and the 21 are both really great. That said the faster 24/2.8 Asph is also extremely good.

Edited by uhoh7
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

When your first into Leica, the perfect image seems a challenge, you want to buy the best performing lens and have no compromise ?

 

I'm glad I read all the reviews, have many Putt's bibles at hand and know a few anorak questions about glass and build BUT when you go further down your journey you appreciate that the image quality is so good that you can forget 'is it sharp enough' its more about how do you find the lens to use (size etc) and how does the rendering look and where you use the lens how does it compare. There is some magic about older glass too so don't ignore lenses like the 35mm Summaron, the 24 Elmarit ASPH is a wonderful lens, focus shift is much talked about but often not a real problem, how many times are you shooting a flat plane ?

 

If I was starting now and in your shoes I'd buy a Summicron V4 35mm lens and the 24mm Elmarit 

 

If any lenses are out send them to Leica for a service

Link to post
Share on other sites

When your first into Leica, the perfect image seems a challenge, you want to buy the best performing lens and have no compromise ?... If I was starting now and in your shoes I'd buy a Summicron V4 35mm lens and the 24mm Elmarit 

 

 

 

I agree. My 35 V4 Summicron rarely leaves my M9.  I've acquired lots of Leica glass over the years but this lens shines on the M9. Another M9 favorite is a 1969 vintage 50 Summicron. Wonderful color rendition.

I also like the 21 SEM for wide angle work and the 90 Elmarit M for portraits.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

But what's the best? No excuses for bad shots? Really! What about 'sample variation', back/front focus, etc.? 

 

Best isn't a universal standard. 

 

 

There's not a lens combination in discussion that wouldn't produce fantastic results, any poor (bad) picture will be down to the photographer. I think that's the point really you may prefer a lens but I can't think of one I own that I can blame for a missed shot or a bad image, except flare perhaps. Even then what should I expect pointing a 50 Summicron mkIV into the sun ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is: Let's assume I want to make a portrait with a 35mm lens at open aperture and the eye of the person which I want to be sharp is - like often - not in the center of the image but at around 12mm image circle radius. The sharpness I can expect can be seen in the MTF, can't it?
Enclosed a comparison of the current Leica M f1.4 and f2 versions and the Zeiss f1.4. 
The Zeiss would provide double resolution at that area!
Of course the quality of the photography at first hand depends on the capability of the photographer. But the photographer wants sharp images so he chooses sharp lenses. 
So my question is, can the low contrast @ 40 l/mm (= low resolution) of the two Leica lenses compared to the Zeiss lens be seen in the pictures? What's the experience of the users of these lenses? And please provide full resolution crops of such out-of-center areas.

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

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...