Nikon 28mm lens on M9

[The_hog]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm just about to receive my M9. Already have a Summilux 50mm to start of with. But coming from Nikon I have amongst several nice lenses an old AIS 28mm f2,8 Nikkor in mint condition.

 

Now my question is: Is it worth it, investing in the appropriate adapter (100 to 200 USD) for the M9 or should I just forget it.

 

I know focusing has to be done outside the camera but this could be feasible doing nature work and using the hyperfocal technique

 

Regards

Arni

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[adan]

Actually, it might be an interesting experiment to see how a strongly retrofocus SLR wide-angle interacts with the M9 sensor, especially since there will be no coding input, but many options for playing with the corrections in the M9 lens menu.

 

The AIS 28 f/2.8 is one of Nikon's best. Once the adapter is on, it will probably be quite a bit longer than a straight M-mount 28, so expect some viewfinder blockage.

 

The c/v Snapshot-Skopar 25mm f/4 worked fine with no rangefinder linkage, so your 28 @ f/5.6 should do reasonably well, even working closer than "hyperfocal" (which - technically - only refers to pictures where the DoF includes infinity).

 

Expect now a helpful string of "suggestions" for buying other 28mms (Zeiss, C/V, etc.), from posters who don't bother to notice you want to use a lens you already own.

[JonasYip]

Now my question is: Is it worth it, investing in the appropriate adapter (100 to 200 USD) for the M9 or should I just forget it.

 

Can't help you with how the 28 will perform on the M9, but just wanted to note that my perfectly good Nikon-F to Leica-M adapter was only around $80.

[Makten]

The 28/2.8 AIS is not the best lens for stopped down hyperfocal work anyway, so I'd say it's definitely not worth the work. That lens is awesome for wide open closeups, which of course will be impossible without some sort of focusing aid.

[The_hog]

Makten:

 

Thank's for your input.

 

But what about zone focusing rather shortish range (10 to 30 feet) using maybe f8

[marknorton]

I've tried the Nikon 28mm f1.4 on the M9, not good.

[giordano]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you want Leica ASPH quality, the Nikkor won't deliver it. But the adapter can be bought for about $100 - and any usable Leica-mount 28mm lens will cost a lot more than that.

[The_hog]

Thank's all for your input.

 

I just ordered an adaptor on Ebay for 82 USD

So - we'll see.

 

Regards

Arni

[k-hawinkler]

Interesting. Questions:

 

• A recommendation for an adapter, please?

• What Nikon / Nikkor lenses would work best (and why) on the adapter as there is no coupled focusing?

I could try 14-24 f2.8 G, 24-70 f2.8 G, 70-200 f2.8 G, or 16 f2.8 Fisheye, 17-35 f2.8, 28 f1.4, 50 f1.2, 50 f1.4, Noct-Nikkor 58 f1.2, 85 f1.4.

Of course, the G lenses don't have an aperture ring, too bad. When not attached to a camera, the aperture seems to be closed down. Provided the same behavior on an adapter, that should give a large DOF.

 

Thanks for suggestions, k-hawinkler

[Hacker]

Nikkor made 28mm LTM lenses, why not consider them?

[Makten]

But what about zone focusing rather shortish range (10 to 30 feet) using maybe f8

Sure, but why? You'll only end up with a larger setup than necessary, which probably delivers less good results than lets say a cheap CV 28/3.5.

[thrice]

I've seen the Zeiss 28/2.8 going for $440 used, and as Makten says, the voigtlanders are even cheaper. Focus errors would far outweigh any possible (yet unlikely) optical advantage that nikkor may have.

[k-hawinkler]

I've seen the Zeiss 28/2.8 going for $440 used, and as Makten says, the voigtlanders are even cheaper. Focus errors would far outweigh any possible (yet unlikely) optical advantage that nikkor may have.

 

Thanks. That's fine. I already have a fair size collection of Leica lenses. Being new to viewfinders, I am just curious about the differences between a Leica and Nikkor lens on an M9. For example, comparing the WATE with the Nikkor 14-24 at 16, 18, and 21 mm with aperture set by necessity at f/16. Or see what the Nikkor 16 mm Fisheye would result in at different apertures.

 

You do not think this could possibly be useful for landscape shots?

 

Thanks for your feedback, k-hawinkler

[thrice]

Thanks. That's fine. I already have a fair size collection of Leica lenses. Being new to viewfinders, I am just curious about the differences between a Leica and Nikkor lens on an M9. For example, comparing the WATE with the Nikkor 14-24 at 16, 18, and 21 mm with aperture set by necessity at f/16. Or see what the Nikkor 16 mm Fisheye would result in at different apertures.

 

You do not think this could possibly be useful for landscape shots?

 

Thanks for your feedback, k-hawinkler

 

It could be interesting, if it weren't for the fact that f/16 is real diffraction limited territory, the only things we could compare would be distortion, colour and of course egonomics.

 

No I don't think the 14-24 on an M9 would be useful, the balance would be way off and the inconvenience of only having f/16 available is a deal breaker for me. It would be intriguing but in no way could I see that combination as being truly useful. For example the Konica Hexanon 21-35 or of course the WATE would be far more convenient and versatile, offering similar IQ.

 

Fisheyes are very specialised and I don't know why one would honestly care what the performance of the nikkor fisheye would be like at different apertures on an M9, I'd imagine the performance would be similar to how the lens behaves on a D3x. If you need a fisheye, the Zenitar 16mm with an m42-M adapter would be the easiest solution. I've read that the 12mm voigtlander finder does a good job approximating the FOV from that lens as well.

 

Can you explain what you mean by being new to viewfinders, as in SLR's? Or are you referring to auxiliary viewfinders with wide angles? Or the viewfinder on the rangefinder itself?

 

Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with curiosity, but aside from curiosity, I don't think using nikkors on an M leica would satisfy in any other way.

[lars_bergquist]

Interesting. Questions:

 

• A recommendation for an adapter, please?

• What Nikon / Nikkor lenses would work best (and why) on the adapter as there is no coupled focusing?

I could try 14-24 f2.8 G, 24-70 f2.8 G, 70-200 f2.8 G, or 16 f2.8 Fisheye, 17-35 f2.8, 28 f1.4, 50 f1.2, 50 f1.4, Noct-Nikkor 58 f1.2, 85 f1.4.

Of course, the G lenses don't have an aperture ring, too bad. When not attached to a camera, the aperture seems to be closed down. Provided the same behavior on an adapter, that should give a large DOF.

 

Thanks for suggestions, k-hawinkler

Novoflex (http://www.novoflex.de) do make several kinds of high quality adapters, including, as I remember, one that makes it possible to use Nikon G lenses.

 

The old man from the Noflexar Age

[Makten]

There is one issue that might be forgotten here. The offset micro lenses of the M9 sensor will not "do their job" properly when using a lens with a rear nodal point that is farther from the sensor than expected. This will be the case with any SLR lens, and it might cause light falloff and blurring of the edges.

[k-hawinkler]

It could be interesting, if it weren't for the fact that f/16 is real diffraction limited territory, the only things we could compare would be distortion, colour and of course egonomics.

 

No I don't think the 14-24 on an M9 would be useful, the balance would be way off and the inconvenience of only having f/16 available is a deal breaker for me. It would be intriguing but in no way could I see that combination as being truly useful. For example the Konica Hexanon 21-35 or of course the WATE would be far more convenient and versatile, offering similar IQ.

 

Fisheyes are very specialised and I don't know why one would honestly care what the performance of the nikkor fisheye would be like at different apertures on an M9, I'd imagine the performance would be similar to how the lens behaves on a D3x. If you need a fisheye, the Zenitar 16mm with an m42-M adapter would be the easiest solution. I've read that the 12mm voigtlander finder does a good job approximating the FOV from that lens as well.

 

Can you explain what you mean by being new to viewfinders, as in SLR's? Or are you referring to auxiliary viewfinders with wide angles? Or the viewfinder on the rangefinder itself?

 

Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with curiosity, but aside from curiosity, I don't think using nikkors on an M leica would satisfy in any other way.

 

Thanks for your feedback. I appreciate your point about diffraction.

 

I meant to say: new to rangefinders. I have had Nikons for the past several years and finally got my first rangefinder, the M9, on Dec. 29.

 

To satisfy my curiosity, once I have the adapter, I think I will see what images the Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 lens will produce on the M9. This lens has a manual aperture ring so that I should be able to see for myself when diffraction kicks in, provided I can achieve good enough focus. Too bad the M9 doesn't have "Live View". That would be a great tool for focusing non-rangefinder-coupled lenses.

 

Thanks again for your help, k-hawinkler

[k-hawinkler]

Novoflex (Novoflex - Home) do make several kinds of high quality adapters, including, as I remember, one that makes it possible to use Nikon G lenses.

 

The old man from the Noflexar Age

 

Many thanks.

 

I believe you are correct that, with a Novoflex adapter for Nikon lenses, aperture can also be controlled for Nikon G lenses on a MicroFourThirds camera.

However, I don't think something similar applies to the M9. Please, correct me if I am wrong. Thanks.

 

With best regards, k-hawinkler

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[k-hawinkler]

There is one issue that might be forgotten here. The offset micro lenses of the M9 sensor will not "do their job" properly when using a lens with a rear nodal point that is farther from the sensor than expected. This will be the case with any SLR lens, and it might cause light falloff and blurring of the edges.

 

Thanks. Good point. I hadn't thought of that.

Do you have a reference for your assertion in which this behavior is documented?

 

Thanks again, k-hawinkler

[Makten]

Thanks. Good point. I hadn't thought of that.

Do you have a reference for your assertion in which this behavior is documented?

No, I'm just guessing here. But since the offset micro lenses are supposed to make up for problems with lenses protruding long into the camera, it's probably not a bad guess that lenses that projects the light closer to perpendicular to the sensor will instead work less good than with ordinary non-offset micro lenses.

 

On the other hand, the Leica tele lenses wouldn't work all to well because of the same reason. But since they're often used for portraits, the problem could be hidden in the OOF backgrounds. It would be interesting to see a 135 mm Leica "brick wall test".