Jump to content

Runkel

Members
  • Content Count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Runkel

  1. I agree with darylgo about the 50mm Summilux v1. The lens diagram is very similar to that of the Noctilux, and it shows similar swirly bokeh wide open. I have a very clean 50mm f/2.0 Summaron that I mostly use on the M246 for shooting people. It could replace the Noctilux for this in my use. I use it with the variable-length FIKUS hood, which could be extended to add some mechanical vignetting if desired.
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. Mark and Luigi, Thanks for the fact check and confirmation.
  12. On distortion, the 35/2 beats the 35/1.4, the 35 C and probably any Leica 35.
  13. What is the deficiency of the ZM Biogon 35/2? Size? Has anyone compared the new 35/2 and the ZM?
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. I would suggest also looking at the 50mm f/3.5 Elmar-M, the coated, M-mount version of this lens (optically equivalent to the last "red scale" screw mount version) that preceded (and briefly overlapped with) the original 50mm f/2.8 Elmar-M. This is not a well-known lens, but many who do know it consider it superior to the original f/2.8. It is also significantly lighter than the f/2.8. I find it gives lovely results. There is a fine looking one on eBay right now for a bit over $300.
  17. I like the Contax GG-1 lens hood for this lens (and for the original 28 Summicron and the 35 Summilux ASPH pre-FLE). This hood was made for the Contax G 28mm and 35mm, mostly in champagne, but it’s findable in black. A 55mm lens cap fits the front of the hood.
  18. I’ve sold or traded a number of M and R lenses in the last four or five years and, maybe coincidentally, only regretted the 35s. One was the cleanest and newest 35/2.8 Summaron I’ve seen before or since, one was a German chrome v4 Summicron, and one was a titanium Summilux ASPH. With the first two, missing them is bound up with not being able to cost-effectively replace them. With the Summilux, which was my first M lens, I miscalculated how much I would miss the ergonomics and image signature. I eventually reacquired the Summilux ASPH, a later black version. I prefer used gear that loo
  19. Viewfinder blockage with the 35/2 Biogon is completely trivial if it’s used without a hood. With a hood, I still find it trivial and others may not. Since you are new to Leica, you may yet discover that a small amount of viewfinder blockage does not bother you in actual practice.
  20. Don Goldberg (DAG) told me the issue is that Leica chose a synthetic grease that leads to “pinching” (his term) when fine focus is needed. Don felt this choice of grease was a mistake. He relubed mine with a different grease Leica used formerly and this totally corrected the problem. I’d recommend calling DAG to discuss, then sending your lens to him.
  21. It strikes me that, while you've tried a lot of 50s, many of them including all the Leicas have some similarities of character, which I might loosely call a crisp, contrasty drawing of fairly "modern" character. In this regard, the APO Summicron could prove to be the apotheosis of things you've already tried, and so also unsatisfying. I think if what you were missing was apertures wider than f/1.4, you would be expressing that rather than speaking of intangibles. In your shoes, I would take a look at the Summicron v.III (1969), the Summilux v.I and the Elmar f/3.5 in M-mount, which is en
  22. I think the premise is mistaken. There is a pinned thread called “The View Through Older Glass,” for one thing. An alternative question could be “why are so few M10 users interested in older glass?” I suspect a big reason there is that many M10 users are new to the M system, bought their camera together with one or more latest-and-greatest lenses, and bought into the notions of ultimate image quality that Leica’s marketing tends to present. Probably few Monochrom users are new to the M system or have the Monochrom as a first digital M. They tend to own older lenses and appreciate what the
  23. It seems to me that a Noctilux is something of a special case, and that while the reasoning expressed makes some sense for a Noctilux, it does not really support the maxim "shoot wide open whenever possible." You don't buy a Formula 1 car to go grocery shopping, but nor do you redline your Toyota on grocery runs. My Noctilux f/1.0 is not my only 50, and usually if I'm not going to be shooting at f/1.0 I will have a different 50 on the camera.
×
×
  • Create New...