Jump to content

henning

Members
  • Content Count

    291
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About henning

  • Rank
    Erfahrener Benutzer

Converted

  • City
    Vancouver, BC
  • Job
    Photographer; Architect
  • Your Leica Products / Deine Leica Produkte
    M6, M7, M8, M9 and 30 lenses

Profile Information

  • Country
    Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. As a long time Leica rangefinder shooter (59 years) I've owned and used a lot of different equipment. In the 35mm focal length which is probably my favourite, for example, I have at present 2 Leica lenses, 2 Zeiss and 2 Voigtlander. All have their reason for existence, although likely two of them will depart shortly. None is noticeably 'best' overall. The one that is arguably 'best optically', the Zeiss Distagon actually doesn't get nearly as much use as the Leica 35 Summilux ASPH, mostly because the last bit of optical 'best' doesn't usually matter as much as the annoyance of the obstruction
  2. 35mm is my favourite focal length on M cameras, and i've had one since 1962. At present I have Leica Summicron v4 Leica Summilux ASPH v1; one of the very first ones Zeiss Distagon f/1.4 Zeiss C-Biogon f/2.8 Voigtlander f/1.2 vII Leica Tri-Elmar v1 coming shortly Voigtlander Ultron v/2 vII and nearly 35, the Voigtlander 40mm f/1.4 MC Probably enough. However, there are still different flavours, of which I have tried many. The Distagon is the best performing (better than my copy of the C-Biogon at equivalent apertures) but large. The CV Nokton f
  3. Some pictures with the Laowa 9mm from last October on the M10M. I've had very wide angle lenses since the 60's. I still have the Hologon I bought in 1973, and now have the WATE (from the M8 promotion when it came out), the 21 Summilux, the 21 SE, the 21 f/2.8 ASPH, the 15/4.5 CV from it's introduction in the 90's, similarly the 12/5.6 and more recently the 10/5.6, which will have to go as the Laowa 9mm is much better. This is only cropped in the vertical. I rarely put people in super wide angle shots, but I left this one. This has verticals cor
  4. A couple of things: A superachromat focusses 4 wavelengths on one plane, at one distance. Which wavelengths, and at what distance isn't specified. What happens to the plane of focus between these wavelengths isn't specified nor what happens at other focussed distances; those other colours may focus very close to the common focus plane, be way off or vary to any degree. There is no such thing as 'apochromatic glass'. Apochromaticism is a feature of a system, ie, a total optical assembly. Anomalous dispersion glass makes it easier to design high performance lenses with a useful general
  5. Very interesting. Last time I was in Wetzlar I got a different answer.
  6. That's not quite right. It has a minimum focus distance of 0.5m (at all focal lengths), as I mentioned before. The scale goes lower, for dof scale purposes.
  7. Actually, I think DigiLloyd has that wrong. Leica posts measured MTF's, as does Zeiss. Cosina (Voigtlander) posts calculated MTF's, as do most Japanese companies. In any case, comparing MTF's from different manufacturers or even the same one from different decades doesn't lead to anything other than arguments. It's not a reasonable thing to do.
  8. Someone mentioned that this is the first M lens to focus close than 0.7m. Actually, I think the Wide Angle Tri-Elmar is; it doesn't focus to 0.3m, only to 0.5m but it also has the detent and stiffer focussing below 0.7m and the grey scale.
  9. I had the 40/1.4 and also the 35/1.4 shortly after they first came out. In general I liked the 40 better, and it had significantly less focus shift. After a while I sold them both but recently got a good deal on a 40 MC and am shooting that when I want a more retro look on my M10M. The performance is fairly close to my gen4 35 Summicron; it's hardly any larger and can get softer/funkier yet. A great counterpoint to the 35 Distagon and Summilux Asph.
  10. henning

    M10R

    How far in front of the back of the camera is the sensor plane? About halfway through the body. You have to read the whole post.
  11. henning

    M10R

    The only way to have current technology dust removal (and IBIS) with a reasonable thickness camera body is to extend the lens mount even further out front of the camera surface. I'm not sure how that might impact the rangefinder coupling, but it will impact it. Just have a look at the sensor plane location in a Sony A7, Nikon Z or Canon RF. They're almost in the centre of the body. That indicates to me that the lens mount would have to be pushed out substantially; maybe 4 or 5mm. I'm not sure that's acceptable, and it would obviously change other parameters as well. I also appreciate
  12. As I was out of the country when the M10M was announce (and first delivered), I didn't even find out about the camera until well after the first shipment had been sold out here in Vancouver. When I did find out, I also got info on the first rumours of the 'Wetzlar' addition with the Leitz script on top, so I went to my local dealer to order that. When that camera was officially announced, I was told it was sold out immediately, so changed my order to the regular M10M. A couple of days ago I got a phone call to let me know that they can get the 'Wetzlar' edition, and did I still want that? Yes!
  13. Consider though that the M240 uses the older electronic finder, which is both coarse and sluggish. Since longer focal lengths magnify camera shake, focussing them with a finder that's sluggish is VERY problematic. The M10 finder is a lot better. Image stabilization would make these issues largely go away. BTW, focussing and composing on the rear screen handheld is difficult enough with shorter lenses, but 200mm and over are also a pain. My experience with this includes a 180/4 App-Lanthar (which is the one lens I do use, as it's not too big or heavy), a 200/4 micro-Nikkor, a 180/3.4 Apo-
  14. The Visoflex lenses are quite easy to focus, as the optical design of the Visoflex didn't have to make the usual compromises for short focal length lenses. Macro lenses when extended place similar demands on focussing systems as long tales. When the f/6.8 Telyts (400 and 560mm) came out, the 400 in particular was a joy to use, as focussing was fast and accurate. Not until good AF came out in the last 15 years or so was it easier to catch birds in flight with SLR's than with a 400/6.8 on a Visoflex. Auto diaphragm wasn't an issue as those lenses were used wide open in most cases anyway.
×
×
  • Create New...