Nikon 28mm lens on M9

[pluton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

This is true, based on my experience with the N 28.2.8AiS on film and D3.

Also, the 28 f.l. is a little long for zone focusing, and the distance/d.o.f. scales are either not accurate, or too small to be accurate.

It seems to me the reason this lens is so highly rated by so many 'Nikon shooters' is that these are folks who have never worked with really well-made lenses, and are accustomed to working with real junk(wobbly old Nikon "pro" lenses or consumer grade plastic lenses). The 28/2.8 is an mechanical/optical miracle by comparison to what they usually use.

[Makten]

It seems to me the reason this lens is so highly rated by so many 'Nikon shooters' is that these are folks who have never worked with really well-made lenses, and are accustomed to working with real junk(wobbly old Nikon "pro" lenses or consumer grade plastic lenses). The 28/2.8 is an mechanical/optical miracle by comparison to what they usually use.

I don't agree. The 28/2.8 AIS is one of the sharpest lenses for SLR:s there is, IF you shoot it up close. I've used it and many many other great lenses on Nikon FX, and it is simply stellar when used properly. It beats the new Nikkor 24-70/2.8 right away at <1 meter distance, all over the frame. I'd say it's as sharp at f/4 as a slow 50 mm lens is at f/8 (close to infinity) under these conditions.

[k-hawinkler]

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".

 

Thanks.

 

Okay. I have a really inexpensive (by Leica standards) 40 year old 135 mm Tele-Elmar. It was listed as "EX" by KEH. I don't know yet how accurate the focus is.

I can put the M9 & lens on a tripod, select ISO 160, and shoot my neighbor's brick wall from f=4 to f=22 in uncompressed dng.

I could post the high resolution images in jpg format on my web site.

 

Did you have something like that in mind?

[Makten]

Thanks.

 

Okay. I have a really inexpensive (by Leica standards) 40 year old 135 mm Tele-Elmar. It was listed as "EX" by KEH. I don't know yet how accurate the focus is.

I can put the M9 & lens on a tripod, select ISO 160, and shoot my neighbor's brick wall from f=4 to f=22 in uncompressed dng.

I could post the high resolution images in jpg format on my web site.

 

Did you have something like that in mind?

No! Shoot whatever you wan't but I'm not interested in brick walls. It was just a suggestion for those who like to know if the offset micro lenses would constitute a problem for image quality with tele lenses (or retro focus "telecentric" wide angles) on M9.

 

Me, I don't at all understand why you'd want to use an SLR wide angle lens on the M9. The likelihood for it being better than RF lenses is very low.

[The_hog]

No!

 

Me, I don't at all understand why you'd want to use an SLR wide angle lens on the M9. The likelihood for it being better than RF lenses is very low.

 

The answer is sinple: I have it.

[adan]

Topic drift - but - the longer lenses 75-135 perform extremely well on the M9 as regards resolution and color and such. I've noted that using Leica's menu corrections for the 135 TE produces a tiny lightening of the corners (vignetting correction) compared to an untagged image - but so little (< 1/3rd stop) that I've quit wasting the time to mess with the menu.

 

It was certainly theorized (by me, among others) that the M9's microlens shift to handle wide-angles might degrade long lens performance. but is the real world, it does not seem to hold true for up to 135mm (A Telyt on a Visoflex might be different).

[k-hawinkler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Topic drift - but - the longer lenses 75-135 perform extremely well on the M9 as regards resolution and color and such. I've noted that using Leica's menu corrections for the 135 TE produces a tiny lightening of the corners (vignetting correction) compared to an untagged image - but so little (< 1/3rd stop) that I've quit wasting the time to mess with the menu.

 

It was certainly theorized (by me, among others) that the M9's microlens shift to handle wide-angles might degrade long lens performance. but is the real world, it does not seem to hold true for up to 135mm (A Telyt on a Visoflex might be different).

 

Many thanks for the education. I have finally shot my first Brick Wall, please see 2010-01-18 135 TE Brick Wall - winklers' Photos. Now I can say: "I have been there, done it, got the T-shirt." I promise, I won't make it a habit.

 

What did I see, learn - shooting the 135 mm Tele-Elmar (not Tele-Elmar-M) from 1970 on M9, about 10-12 feet from the brick wall?

 

• Images look pretty sharp to me from corner to corner. However, I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

• From observing plant in front of wall, DOF is increasing from f=4 to f=22 (as expected).

• Diffraction effects seem to be visible at f=16, definitely at f=22 (with magnification glass).

• Sharpness seems to peak around f=8 or f=11. I can't tell these apart.

 

In Leica M-Lenses, Their soul and secrets, by Erwin Puts, page 72, we find for the 135 mm f/4 Tele-Elmar-M, quote: "The subject outlines are sharply delineated and give the image a high sharpness impression. Stopped down to 5.6 the contrast improves somewhat, but the outer zones still lag behind. After f/8,0 the contrast of the very fine object details diminish a bit. Stopping down further softens the edges of fine details slightly more. This performance holds from infinity to about 3 meters." In Leica Lens Tests we find: "LEICA TELE-ELMAR 135mm f/4. 1965-1990, 39mm filters, 505g. 11 851. This lens has the same optics as the TELE-ELMAR-M above, but in a smaller, lighter package."

 

Not surprisingly (or better: lucky me) my 135 Tele-Elmar seems to perform in agreement with that.

 

I still think it would be educational to see how a Nikkor lens performs on the M9 with adapter.

 

Thanks again for your feedback.

[k-hawinkler]

Thank's all for your input.

 

I just ordered an adaptor on Ebay for 82 USD

So - we'll see.

 

Regards

Arni

 

Ami,

 

I believe I ordered the same adapter as you. I had to shorten the pin that keeps the Nikon lens in place just a tiny bit. Otherwise, the Nikon lens was very hard to take off as the pin didn't quite retract far enough. Now it works fine.

 

Just for the heck of it I mounted a Nikon 16 mm f/2.8 Fisheye lens on the M9. The following is the central crop of a light fixture I photographed @ about 3 feet, f=8, 1/40s and WB set to Tungsten, handheld.

 

I can imagine that some of my Nikkor lenses might turn out to be useful after all on the M9 if I get a good grip on estimating distances for example for landscape shots.

 

It certainly will be interesting to find out whether I can train myself to spot immediately the differences in images taken with a Leica or Nikon lens but on the same M9 sensor.

 

Have you taken any pictures yet with your Nikon 28 mm lens?

 

With best regards, k-hawinkler

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[The_hog]

Interesting - a lovely picture.

 

But sorry to say - I'm still waiting for my M9 to arrive.

 

You say, crop - so what are the edges like. Any sign that the light is hitting the sensor at a bad angle?

 

Regards, Arni.

[k-hawinkler]

Interesting - a lovely picture.

 

But sorry to say - I'm still waiting for my M9 to arrive.

 

You say, crop - so what are the edges like. Any sign that the light is hitting the sensor at a bad angle?

 

Regards, Arni.

 

Ami,

 

Thanks for the feedback. I hope your M9 will show up soon.

To answer your question I took the photo below this morning in my backyard here in New Mexico.

Parameters: M9 + Nikon 16 mm f/2.8 Fisheye @ ISO=160, f=8, 1/500 s, automatic WB, in camera exposure correction +1, distance set to infinity, lens detection off.

A full resolution image is posted here: There seems to be a little bit of purple fringing at the extreme sides (I see that effect also when using the lens on the Nikon D3). However, I don't notice any red edge problem in the uncompressed dng file. The posted images were only converted from dng to jpg, no other processing was done.

 

I think this is a very encouraging result. Now, if Leica gave us live view or electronic focus confirmation then ...

 

With best regards, k-hawinkler

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!