Jump to content

Runkel

Members
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Runkel

  • Rank
    Neuer Benutzer

Profile Information

  • Country
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. This titanium 35mm was my first Leica lens and performed wonderfully for me for many years. I sold it in a moment of questionable wisdom and a later black replacement never quite had the magic on digital. Never checked the titanium for focus shift but the black had it and I do think film is more forgiving of shift. Now the black one is gone and I’m happily shooting a few 35s, most often the Summicron v2 (with the aperture tab). I also shoot a very late 3.5cm f/3.5 Elmar (coated), and the results on digital, including the color, might surprise some people. I fear that for my use
  2. If my 80mm Summilux-R from 1980 is any indication, it’s a non-issue. I would look at the 50mm Summilux v1 and the 50mm Summicron v3.
  3. What you bought is not an adapter. In the case of Leica R lenses and Nikon F-mount bodies, no adapter is possible because the F flange distance is 46.5 mm and the R flange distance is 47mm. The adapter would need to be 0.5 mm thick.
  4. I have not used either Summarit, but have been extremely happy with the very clean Summicron (II) that I added about a year ago and shoot on the M262 and M246. I don't use a hood, and the images are nicely saturated and contrasty, with no visible flare to date (mostly in "non-challenging" conditions). My main 35 for many years was the Summilux ASPH pre-FLE, overlapping for a time with a Summicron (IV). The images I get from the Summicron (II) stand up well to the results from those two. If I found a Summicron (II) and a Summarit in comparable condition and close in price, I would buy
  5. A disadvantage for adapting to non-Leica digital cameras is that those cameras’ sensor toppings are not designed for the shallow ray angles of wide-angle rangefinder lenses, and those cameras do not compensate for how their sensor toppings refract image-forming light from such lenses. I’m sure the ZM 35/2 is somewhat retrofocus, which may moderate the ray-angle issue. The Zeiss data sheet for the 35/2 has data for f/2 and f/4. The data sheet for the 35/2.8 shows f/2.8 and f/5.6. Hard to compare “sharpness” based on that, but the 35/2 at f/4 should be as sharp as anyone needs, especiall
  6. The Wiki is wrong. It uses the same image reference for both. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/File:S5014.jpg Good. catch. It's interesting to observe the similarity between the v1 diagram and the Noctilux 1.0 diagram. Noctilux has an air gap between the second and third elements--and glass types, of course.
  7. I think two-for-one is excessive and there are other scenarios to consider. In this situation I would target a v1 cron and try to keep one of the other two, or look to replace the current pair with a v1 and a 50mm at the right price point (summarit, v3 cron and elmar-M seem plausible). I have the v1 and have never been tempted to pay the considerable premium and move to v2. For practical purposes there seems to be little difference between them, and what there is isn’t about colors and rendering. Another possibility is the 28mm elmarit v4 (last pre-ASPH), which I traded toward
  8. I favor the summilux v1 at f/2 or, more recently for black and white, a clean summar. There are many other great choices. For short telephoto, it’s very hard to improve on the 80mm summilux (mine is adapted for Sony), the 75 summilux (more or less the same lens), or the last pre-ASPH 90mm summicron.
  9. I had a v5 probably from the 1990s that "flared" unpredictably (likely not actually flare but the result of internal reflections), not commonly, sometimes veiling and sometimes more. There was lore that in a certain batch, Leica had used a too-reflective black paint for metalwork after the last element. I sent the lens to Leica New Jersey to have the suspect area repainted matte black. This improved the performance but the unpredictable flare still occurred rarely. Since I could not trust the lens, I got rid of it. I have used many Leica lenses, older and modern, and the "flare" issues
  10. Mark and Luigi, Thanks for the fact check and confirmation.
  11. On distortion, the 35/2 beats the 35/1.4, the 35 C and probably any Leica 35.
  12. What is the deficiency of the ZM Biogon 35/2? Size? Has anyone compared the new 35/2 and the ZM?
  13. When I owned this lens I used a Contax Metal Hood GG-1 from the Contax G system, which I also use currently with the 28mm Summicron (I) and 35mm Summilux ASPH pre-FLE. This is a very low-profile hood. It’s more common in the champagne/titanium color but can also be found in black. Not as expensive as Leica options or as inexpensive as Chinese options.
  14. You didn’t buy this lens with the expectation it would need immediate repair. Why not return it to the seller for the promised refund and find a better example? It’s not a rare lens. As noted, DAG can improve the not-uncommon focus-feel issue—what he calls “pinching”—by re-lubing with an older Leica grease.
×
×
  • Create New...