jonoslack Posted February 9, 2016 Share #21 Posted February 9, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Jared has it pretty much nailed the salient point is that if you are shooting macro with the old lens and Pamela Anderson drives past topless on a Harley Davidson, then you're going to need to take the goggles off before you can get the shot.. With the new lens and adapted you only need to collapse the lens to shoot up to infinity. ive written an article about it if you're interested: http://www.slack.co.uk/2014/Leica_Macro_Elmar.html 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 Hi jonoslack, Take a look here What's the difference between the " old " macro 90mm and the new one?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Peter Kilmister Posted February 9, 2016 Share #22 Posted February 9, 2016 Pamela Anderson topless on a Harley Davidson ... good lord, what a frightening thought! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 9, 2016 Share #23 Posted February 9, 2016 jonoslack, on 09 Feb 2016 - 15:33, said:jonoslack, on 09 Feb 2016 - 15:33, said: Jared has it pretty much nailed the salient point is that if you are shooting macro with the old lens and Pamela Anderson drives past topless on a Harley Davidson, then you're going to need to take the goggles off before you can get the shot.. With the new lens and adapted you only need to collapse the lens to shoot up to infinity. ive written an article about it if you're interested: http://www.slack.co.uk/2014/Leica_Macro_Elmar.html Not relevant. Your viewfinder will be steamed up anyway. Just a grumpy old pedant remark on your article, Jono. On the T a 90 mm does not become a 135mm lens, it just has the angle of view of a 135 mm lens on full frame. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrödinger's cat Posted February 9, 2016 Share #24 Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) Crud. I clicked jono's link because it thought it was going to be something about Pamela Anderson and only got an article about camera lenses. Edited February 9, 2016 by Schrödinger's cat 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphh Posted February 9, 2016 Share #25 Posted February 9, 2016 So I had a bit of a set-back in my old lens on new adapter money-saving idea; My nice new adapter came non-functioning. It extended fine (and VERY smoothly, with almost 360 degrees throw), but the lens release tab was permanently stuck down - I couldn't even force it back up, so no locking any lenses into place on it. Pretty poor given it came with a hand-signed inspection certificate. I mean seriously, it has no optics, and only two moving parts. How can you miss that one isn't moving? I don't believe it could have been damaged in transit either; it was very well packed - exactly the same as a lens, with foam-padded leather case and everything. Took it back to B&H who swapped it out for a working one without question. So an hour of my time, and $5.50 on subway tickets wasted, but in the grand scheme of things not too bad I guess. My old model 90mm macro arrives tonight, so will be able to update later on today. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 9, 2016 Share #26 Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) [...] My old model 90mm macro arrives tonight, so will be able to update later on today. [...] Would you mind to share your findings here? I plan to buy a new adapter for my old 90/4 macro as well. Edited February 9, 2016 by lct Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphh Posted February 9, 2016 Share #27 Posted February 9, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Would you mind to share your findings here? I plan to buy a new adapter for my old 90/4 macro as well. That's exactly what I plan to do! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted February 9, 2016 Share #28 Posted February 9, 2016 Would you mind to share your findings here? I plan to buy a new adapter for my old 90/4 macro as well. If I were you I would stick to the old adapter for the older 90. If you don't like the eyes they come off very easily. The close focusing scale I'd very handy when the older lens is mounted, as well as the aperture ring markings. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
microview Posted February 9, 2016 Share #29 Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) It's worth noting that the hood with the new version needs great care in removing/fitting. I found the claws cut straight into the black finish on my new lens and left three silver markings (fixed with black Sharpie). So a screw-in type would be a safer option. Edited February 9, 2016 by microview Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 9, 2016 Share #30 Posted February 9, 2016 If I were you I would stick to the old adapter for the older 90. If you don't like the eyes they come off very easily. The close focusing scale I'd very handy when the older lens is mounted, as well as the aperture ring markings. I'll keep the old adapter for the M240 but i plan to use the new one with my A7s. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted February 10, 2016 Share #31 Posted February 10, 2016 I'll keep the old adapter for the M240 but i plan to use the new one with my A7s. I looked at the old and the new one and the only difference I see is the eyes. The new one looks like it has the eyes removed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted February 10, 2016 Share #32 Posted February 10, 2016 Jared has it pretty much nailed the salient point is that if you are shooting macro with the old lens and Pamela Anderson drives past topless on a Harley Davidson, then you're going to need to take the goggles off before you can get the shot.. With the new lens and adapted you only need to collapse the lens to shoot up to infinity. ive written an article about it if you're interested: http://www.slack.co.uk/2014/Leica_Macro_Elmar.html It seems Leica is 10-15 years late with the new design to shoot Pamela. Thanks for the detailed write up. Last year I bought the old lens (used) since didn't know the difference. If I knew, I might have gone for newer design. However, I don't do macro and won't lose much with the old design. I wont miss Megan Fox if she drives by. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 10, 2016 Share #33 Posted February 10, 2016 I looked at the old and the new one and the only difference I see is the eyes. The new one looks like it has the eyes removed. Interesting thanks. May i ask how you manage to remove the goggles? I have not the old adapter with me here so i don't recall the way it is designed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted February 10, 2016 Share #34 Posted February 10, 2016 It's worth noting that the hood with the new version needs great care in removing/fitting. I found the claws cut straight into the black finish on my new lens and left three silver markings The hood that comes with the "old" model does the same. In my experience of this lens (bought it when it first came out and more recently bought the complete macro set) is that the large hood isn't necessary and can be replaced by the little 50/F2.8 Elmar screw in hood. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted February 10, 2016 Share #35 Posted February 10, 2016 Interesting thanks. May i ask how you manage to remove the goggles? I have not the old adapter with me here so i don't recall the way it is designed. I have the goggles to hand and don't see any way of removing the eyes without either dismantling the adaptor entirely (certainly involving the removal of the mount) or using a hacksaw . In fact I'm not even sure if they can be removed at all (it is not clear to me whether the eyes component isn't bonded to the extension tube). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted February 10, 2016 Share #36 Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) I looked at the old and the new one and the only difference I see is the eyes. The new one looks like it has the eyes removed. No, they are quite different in construction. The goggled adaptor is essentially a simple extension tube (albeit with a clever pass-through focussing cam mechanism) whereas the newer adaptor has an integral helicoid extension (and no RF cam). The helicoid can be used to focus the lens (in the collapsed position for infinity or extended for closer macro capability). Incidentally, as far as I can see, the goggles cannot be easily removed from the old adaptor. Edited February 10, 2016 by wattsy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 10, 2016 Share #37 Posted February 10, 2016 The hood that comes with the "old" model does the same. In my experience of this lens (bought it when it first came out and more recently bought the complete macro set) is that the large hood isn't necessary and can be replaced by the little 50/F2.8 Elmar screw in hood. My experience is somewhat different Ian. The little hood of the 50/2.8 may be useful to protect the first element of the lens but it but does not provide any significant shade when the sun or any other strong light source is outside the frame. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted February 10, 2016 Share #38 Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) My experience is somewhat different Ian. The little hood of the 50/2.8 may be useful to protect the first element of the lens but it but does not provide any significant shade when the sun or any other strong light source is outside the frame. That's interesting. It's quite possible that I simply haven't used this lens often enough to encounter the problem but I've never felt flare has been an issue with this lens (something that I cannot say for lenses that I use much more frequently like the 35 Summicron and Summilux). I had listed my 90 Macro kit in the classifieds but, having no takers, I think I may use it instead. I'll keep an eye out for flare. Edited February 10, 2016 by wattsy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 10, 2016 Share #39 Posted February 10, 2016 I find this lens difficult to get to flare. A larger hood does not really make a difference in my experience.At least the first version, which I had for a while, I didn't use it often enough, so it went, but I cannot imagine the new version having more flare. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 10, 2016 Share #40 Posted February 10, 2016 Don't get me wrong folks. I have no experience with the new model but i consider the (old) 90/4 macro one of the least flare prone 90mm M lenses i've used so far so i can recommend it without reservation. I just wanted to say that using a small hood like that of the 50/2.8 (or the built-in one of the 90/2 apo to take another example) does not provide any significant shade when there are strong light sources outside the frame. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.