A Crazy Proposal

[noah_addis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nobody seems to remember that the 75 summi's on an M8 gave a 100 mm-equivalent field of view. I liked that a lot, better than the wider image that the 75 throws on the M9. ...

 

Try a 90 on your M9, you may like it:D I'm not a huge fan of the 75 on the M9 either. I may sell mine and get Leica to mask the lines so I can compose with my 50 without clutter. The 90AA is quite a nice lens.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the 105 focal length. I still have my Nikkor 105/2.5 and it's a classic. If we could go back and start fresh maybe I'd prefer it to the 90. But at this point, when you have to consider framelines and compatibility with decades worth of existing Leica film cameras, switching doesn't seem to be a good option.

 

And I would argue that, while the 135 may be tougher to use, replacing it with a 105 would give the M system less capability for no real gain.

 

I think the current lineup of framelines (28-35-50-75-90-135) is more balanced and logical than (28-35-50-75-90-105) would be.

[Advertisement]

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

[luigi bertolotti]

A M8 or M9 with any new 105 will never be so nice as this...

 

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!

 

I think it could be a nice proposal (around f 2,5 to 3,5) for a time in which they will completely redesign the VF/RF system... with something that is really NEW but not too different from now in practical usage... hard task to find a solution.

[ho_co]

So get another external finder.

 

Very compact, light 105 would be a great idea IMHO.

 

I used to use 90/2 and 75/1.4, but both were big and heavy so I got rid of the 90. It would be nice to have a compact and carry-able lens in that range.

 

I know, I could get a 90 Makro, but I missed it when it was cheap, so maybe I could catch something like a 105 or 115.

[lars_bergquist]

Howard, I do think that 105mm and at a maximum 3.8 is the longest and fastest lens that can be reliably focused within the tolerances that a digital M makes mandatory. Hence my proposal.

 

It is a fact that Leica have had this problem before. When the Leica III was introduced, rangefinder magnification was increased from 1x to 1.5x. The new and sharper 13.5cm Hektor had revealed that the very short-based rangefinder of the LTM camera could not handle it reliably. This remedy is of course stil available, as has been pointed out already here, but would a M camera be saleable with 50mm as the widest lens with a finder frame? I think not.

 

The old man from the Age of the 13.5cm Hektor

[Guest BigSplash]

 

Finally, and no apologies for trotting this out once more, this will help to illustrate the point about the 105 being too close to 90 in the lens lineup:

 

[ATTACH]186507[/ATTACH]

 

 

Bill I would believe that your graphic supports the argument to have a 105mm rather than destroys the proposal. Think about it:

• Many people feel that 135mm is difficult to use on a RF camera. Focussing and framing is difficult but not impossible.
  
• The 135mm lens is a big one and not a natural fit for the M. I hardly ever use my 135mm to be honest.
  
• If the 75mm is retained in the line up and 135mm is dropped.....your graphic suggests that something between 75 and 135mm is required and actually 90mm is rather close to 75mm....so 105mm is not in my view a bad choice.
  

[bill]

Just looking at the horizontal angle of view on a full frame 35mm camera I believe a 90mm lens come in at about a 22.5 degree angle of view and a 105mm lens comes in at a 19.5 degree angle of view. That three degree difference could in most cases probably be taken care of with just a few steps forward or back.

 

Thank you for pointing that out, Chuck. It's nice to hear a voice of reason.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What does "a few steps" mean? To change your field by one degree, with a 21mm lens would take just leaning a bit forward or backward. With 135mm, you must take several steps.

 

Mind you, I can make do with my 90mm Elmarit-M. But if 135mm does overstretch the combination of 1950's rangefinder and 2000's digital sensor, so that this lens has to be abandoned, then it makes sense to supply the longest lens that actually can be focused reliably.

 

The old man from the Age of the 13.5cm Hektor

[jbgeach]

Leica needs an led based focus indicator.

[ModernMan]

...

2. Investment goes into improving ease and accuracy of focussing for ALL lenses rather than introducing a compromise lens.

 

A modest upgrade to the range/viewfinder, such as variable magnification (zoom or discrete steps) (and perhaps diopter ajustment) would be most welcome, and let us focus our 135's more easily.

 

Somewhat related: a while back, there was a Midland prototype rangefinder-coupled 180mm on ebay that went for around $3500 iirc. Gotta be tough to focus that one.

[noah_addis]

... But if 135mm does overstretch the combination of 1950's rangefinder and 2000's digital sensor, so that this lens has to be abandoned, then it makes sense to supply the longest lens that actually can be focused reliably. ...

 

I have made a total of four photos on an M9 with a 135 (Two with a 135/2.8, two with a 135/4). They were backlit, wide open, in a camera store. And they were sharp. I was actually impressed with the optical quality of both lenses, considering their age and condition.

 

I haven't worked with a 135 on a Leica enough to have a strong opinion regarding the accuracy of the rangefinder system with that focal length. But others on this forum have said the lens works quite well on the M9. I plan to pick up a 135/4 when I find one in nice condition. The one I tried had a loose focus ring and mushy-feeling aperture ring.

 

Personally, when I use long lenses, it's often stopped down a few stops and focusing would not be a problem at all. Combined with a 1.4 magnifier I'm sure the results would be great.

 

Having the option for a longer M lens, even if it's only suitable for certain purposes, is useful. Especially for photographers trying to work with the M system exclusively who may occasionally need more reach.

 

Changing the frameline system and making it incompatible with older digital and film cameras in order to add a new focal length so close to the existing 90 is, to use your words, crazy:D

[bill]

Having the option for a longer M lens, even if it's only suitable for certain purposes, is useful. Especially for photographers trying to work with the M system exclusively who may occasionally need more reach.

 

Changing the frameline system and making it incompatible with older digital and film cameras in order to add a new focal length so close to the existing 90 is, to use your words, crazy:D

 

+1

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[adan]

The 90mm framelines in a Leica M pretty much exactly match a 105mm FoV already at longer distances. (I did this test with a 105mm and a Nikon F 100% finder, compared to the 90 framelines in an M4-2, nine years ago).

 

Get a screw-mount Canon 100mm, or Nikkor 105, + 28/90 M adapter (for the 90mm lines), and it will be a great match at > 3 meters/10 feet. Closer than that, of course, one would need to progressively frame a bit more loosely to be sure of not cutting something off due to the lens extension factor.

 

Personally, I use the 135 successfully all the time, and find it "just barely long enough", so I wouldn't be excited by a 105. A 180 f/4 or f/4.8 APO with 2x goggles, using the existing 90mm framelines - now THAT might be interesting!

[brianv]

I use my Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5 in LTM with my M3. The inner boundary of the 90mm framelines work out well as 100% FOV. No "margin", but I'm used to the Nikon F series with 100% viewing.

 

 

I will use it on the M8, will report back when I do.

 

If I had an M9, it would be on it as well.

[UliWer]

.... A 180 f/4 or f/4.8 APO with 2x goggles, using the existing 90mm framelines - now THAT might be interesting!

 

Yes!

 

I hate the goggles for M-lenses, though I could well imagine to have them for special use, where you now need a visoflex. With the M8 a 180mm-lens would mean 240mm:)

[adan]

Yeah, normally, I don't like the goggled lenses, either - especially since with the 35 wide-angles they double the weight/volume.

 

OTOH the closeup goggles for the current 90 f/4 Macro seem substantially smaller than Leica's older goggles, so if something could be done in that size package.....and for a focal length that just would not be usable otherwise (at least with 135mm we have the choice - goggles or no goggles).

[luigi bertolotti]

 

Personally, I use the 135 successfully all the time, and find it "just barely long enough", so I wouldn't be excited by a 105. A 180 f/4 or f/4.8 APO with 2x goggles, using the existing 90mm framelines - now THAT might be interesting!

 

Agree... it should be fantastic (better f 4,8, for size... even a f 6,3 APO would be accepted from Leica, imho) : the longer the lens, the less intrusive the goggles... even if probably Leica would state that it had to be closed to at least f11 to avoid focusing errors... : to be conservative, they could limit min. focus to 2,4/2,5 meters... it would be anyway en exciting lens to use.

I think the goggles, like Elmait 135's, are not a Leica patent today (or maybe they never were), so also CV could think to do something like this...

[UliWer]

If the goggles had a magnification of 2x, as adan proposed, you would not need to stop the lens down too much. A 180mm with rangefinder-magnication of 2x could be opened almost up to f/2 for safe focussing - though this would make it a heavy monster. F/4 would be very convenient.

[russell]

Something like this has been tried on the Mamiya 7 medium format rangefinder.

There is a 210mm f8 lenses what is scale focused. Really I guess it's only for setting at infinity focus.

 

MAMIYA: Mamiya 7 II | Lenses | Telephoto 210mm f/8 |

 

I don't think they sell many of them...

 

Me, I'd like to see a M9 with a M3 finder.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[noah_addis]

A 180 f/4 or slower would be interesting. I'm afraid it would be a $500 lens for me. By that I mean if it were old and used (or made by CV) and cost around $500, I'd pick one up as a curiosity. If Leica made one for $3k+, I probably wouldn't get one.

 

If It was a 180/2.8...well that would be really interesting. I'm afraid it would be huge and expensive, but if Zeiss or CV made one I'd definitely go for it.

 

In a way I feel the same way about a 135 f/3.4 or f/4. There's no way I would pay new prices or even high used prices for such a low-percentage lens. But good copies of the 135/4 are cheap, so I do plan to get one.

 

If lenses in the 135mm+ range were important to me, I'd be shooting with an SLR, which is really a better tool for that job. I do keep a Nikon around just for that purpose, though it gets very little use even though my 180/2.8 and 300/2.8AIS lenses are wonderful. Since I'm not that into long lenses (or ultrawides, or macro), the RF system makes sense for me.

[exile]

Cross referencing a similar thread for those searching for a similar optical solution:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/116162-compact-telephoto-compressed-landscapes.html