Where are all the 40 summicron-c M9 users?

[animefx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Searching flickr and other websites and there really are not too many Leica M9 + 40mm Summicron-c or 40mm Rokkor photos to been seen. as much priase as this lens gets for being one of the best "value" lenses (and owning one on my Leica CL I agree) you would think more people would invest in one just for the heck of it.

 

The photos I've seen on the M9 (once again, very few of them) don't seem to look as "3D" as it does on my Leica CL + 40mm + Ektar 100. I'm worried that it could be one of those lenses that looks "worse" on digital. On the other hand I've heard some people say it's practically indentical to the 35mm summicron type iv pre-asph "bokeh king" lens... I'm not sure but if there is any truth to this I would love to see some proof.

 

If you guys could post your best Leica M9 + 40 summicron-c / 40 rokkor photos I would be MOST greatful. I'm really close to pulling the trigger and buying an M9, but the 40mm would be my only lens for it for about 6 or 7 months, and then I could look into the 35 summicron type iv pre-asph "bokeh king" if need be.

[Advertisement]

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

[thompsonkirk]

IMO Graeme Hutton is the 'grand master' of BW with this lens on digital M, & you can find his beautiful posts with a Forum search.

 

In color I've also posted a few, & I recall Ben/roguewave posting some. Here's a thread where folks discussed the contribution made by the lens:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/147553-writing-audience.html

 

And here's a recent portrait that people seemed to like, taken with it:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/147992-kevin.html

(Scroll down to see the second version of the image, without the blue color cast.)

 

I wouldn't hesitate to use this as my sole lens for the 6-7 month period you mentioned. It's my favorite daylight all-time carry-around 35mm lens (stretched by 5mm). It's sharp right away at f2, but isn't contrasty & never looks 'clinical.' It matches the M9's framelines with greater accuracy than 35s. The 35 framelines are quite over-extended or sloppy, & the more accurate framing with 40mm means you don't have to crop extraneous matter later. I think of this as equivalent to adding more megapixels to the sensor!

 

You can search here for DIY instructions for modification to bring up 35mm framelines. You can set the M9 manually for 35 pre-a 'Cron – or, as I was advised, to 35 pre-a 'Lux, which may match the vignetting pattern a little better.

 

If you don't want to do the modification yourself, you can send the lens to DAG. He can also add 6-bit coding, though this takes time – he sends the mount to John Millich for milling & then reassembles & checks it. If you've had the lens since new, you might be wise to have DAG do a thorough CLA. (My advice would be to do the mod yourself, & then 6 months later when you have that second lens, send the 40 to DAG for the coding & TLC it deserves.)

 

If you don't have the original hood, DAG offers an adapter to use screw-in 39mm filters & hoods. Then you can use a 39mm screw-in vented hood, easily found on eBay (try heavystar2). But my own solution is to use the stubby but effective little hood #12550, made for the Elmarit 50mm 2.8 & still available new. It doesn't vignette on M9.

 

So go right ahead & enjoy!

 

Kirk

 

PS, maybe I'm a bokeh-philistine, but I really wouldn't bother to own both a 40 Cron & a 35 ver. 4. I just sold a 35 ver.1 – which some folks like even more than v.4 – because I found I was using the 40 so much more. I'd wonder: should I go out today wearing a 35, or a 50? And unless there was a specific shot I wanted, I'd consistently compromise on the 40, which is a perfect focal length for me. It matches what seems to be my natural place in social space, when I'm photographing.

[animefx]

Kirk, Those two portraits of yours are outstanding! I was wondering if you remembered what aperture you shot them at? From your samples anyway (I'll look for Graeme Hutton next) it seems to have a nice balance between Film and Digital for look. I have a slight preference for the film look at the moment, but sometimes I like seeing all the fine details as well.

 

I'm also wondering if I could get away with 1/15th of a second for handholding this lens when the light gets dim since its limited to f/2, and iso 2500?

 

IMO Graeme Hutton is the 'grand master' of BW with this lens on digital M, & you can find his beautiful posts with a Forum search.

 

In color I've also posted a few, & I recall Ben/roguewave posting some. Here's a thread where folks discussed the contribution made by the lens:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/147553-writing-audience.html

 

And here's a recent portrait that people seemed to like, taken with it:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/147992-kevin.html

(Scroll down to see the second version of the image, without the blue color cast.)

 

I wouldn't hesitate to use this as my sole lens for the 6-7 month period you mentioned. It's my favorite daylight all-time carry-around 35mm lens (stretched by 5mm). It's sharp right away at f2, but isn't contrasty & never looks 'clinical.' It matches the M9's framelines with greater accuracy than 35s. The 35 framelines are quite over-extended or sloppy, & the more accurate framing with 40mm means you don't have to crop extraneous matter later. I think of this as equivalent to adding more megapixels to the sensor!

 

You can search here for DIY instructions for modification to bring up 35mm framelines. You can set the M9 manually for 35 pre-a 'Cron – or, as I was advised, to 35 pre-a 'Lux, which may match the vignetting pattern a little better.

 

If you don't want to do the modification yourself, you can send the lens to DAG. He can also add 6-bit coding, though this takes time – he sends the mount to John Millich for milling & then reassembles & checks it. If you've had the lens since new, you might be wise to have DAG do a thorough CLA. (My advice would be to do the mod yourself, & then 6 months later when you have that second lens, send the 40 to DAG for the coding & TLC it deserves.)

 

If you don't have the original hood, DAG offers an adapter to use screw-in 39mm filters & hoods. Then you can use a 39mm screw-in vented hood, easily found on eBay (try heavystar2). But my own solution is to use the stubby but effective little hood #12550, made for the Elmarit 50mm 2.8 & still available new. It doesn't vignette on M9.

 

So go right ahead & enjoy!

 

Kirk

 

PS, maybe I'm a bokeh-philistine, but I really wouldn't bother to own both a 40 Cron & a 35 ver. 4. I just sold a 35 ver.1 – which some folks like even more than v.4 – because I found I was using the 40 so much more. I'd wonder: should I go out wearing a 35, or a 50? And unless there was a specific shot I wanted, I'd consistently compromise on the 40, which is a perfect focal length for me. It matches my natural place in social space, when I'm photographing.

[thompsonkirk]

Top one, f2.8, if I remember correctly; bottom one, f2.

 

Can't answer your 2d question! I use a 35 Nokton 1.2 in 'available darkness,' & hand-holding @ 1/15 is a highly individualized skill.

 

I don't set ISO above 640, but some folks use 2500, relying on in-camera & post-processing noise reduction. With M9 you can rely on Auto ISO & set 1/15 as a parameter.

 

Maybe your second lens purchase will be the new-but-not-really-available 35 Summilux, if you like that focal length & shoot a lot with available light.

 

Please look at Graeme's posts. They inspired me to center on this lens.

 

Kirk

 

PS, re: film & digital looks: They're not as distant from one another as sensors & inkjet printers improve. Some gelatin-silver folks have even admitted a teeny little bit of admiration for my BW inkjet prints from M9 & Canon 6300 on Harman FBAl paper.

 

But the big difference available to M9 users is smoothness of tonal transitions with no AA filter & no film grain. People have often taken my prints from M9 files to be MF – or as a commercial photographer in my building put it, 'a 4x5 with a crappy lens.'

 

IM personal O, the best 21st c. combination is an M9 (almost no AA filter) & a Leitz/Leica pre-aspherical lens like yours.

[ramosa]

i think it's not used often because it's too close to 35 and 50. with an M9, i would use 28-50-90 or 35-50-90.

[animefx]

I took the time to find all the threads posted by Graeme Hutton and I saw many beautiful b&w photos with the 40 summicron-c and m8, I know that is the least I can expect in the hands of a good photographers. I'm pretty much decided on the m9, I just have to get some of my 5D2 stuff on eBay first.

 

Top one, f2.8, if I remember correctly; bottom one, f2.

 

Can't answer your 2d question! I use a 35 Nokton 1.2 in 'available darkness,' & hand-holding @ 1/15 is a highly individualized skill.

 

I don't set ISO above 640, but some folks use 2500, relying on in-camera & post-processing noise reduction. With M9 you can rely on Auto ISO & set 1/15 as a parameter.

 

Maybe your second lens purchase will be the new-but-not-really-available 35 Summilux, if you like that focal length & shoot a lot with available light.

 

Please look at Graeme's posts. They inspired me to center on this lens.

 

Kirk

 

PS, re: film & digital looks: They're not as distant from one another as sensors & inkjet printers improve. Some gelatin-silver folks have even admitted a teeny little bit of admiration for my BW inkjet prints from M9 & Canon 6300 on Harman FBAl paper.

 

But the big difference available to M9 users is smoothness of tonal transitions with no AA filter & no film grain. People have often taken my prints from M9 files to be MF – or as a commercial photographer in my building put it, 'a 4x5 with a crappy lens.'

 

IM personal O, the best 21st c. combination is an M9 (almost no AA filter) & a Leitz/Leica pre-aspherical lens like yours.

[sblutter]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A very worthy all around lens - gets a bad rap due to price I believe - and maybe got caught up in the poopooing of the CL in general

 

I did many tests with it on the 9 - no probs whatsoever

[andreleon]

Bonsoir à tous,

3 pics with the M9 and Cron.40mm ISO200 ,successivly @ f2,f4,f5,6 .

Thanks for looking .

Cheers .

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!

[k_g_wolf ✝]

Great!

 

Thx for posting.

 

 

Best

GEORG

[Anguish]

I used this lens for a long time on my M8 and then M9 and loved it. I filed it so the 24 mm viewfinder frameline came up. But started running into focus problems.

It is possible the lens, as old and beat up as it was, was out of kilter. or that operator error was contributing to not getting the focus sharp at times. It was not tight.

In any case, I talked with a dealer who opined, as a good salesman would; "what do you expect from a 40-year-old lens that was designed specifically for another camera and that the company warned not to use with this one?"

I decided to eliminate one variable from the equation and got a 35 mm 'cron.

In response to your question, it did serve me well for a while. But when I started pushing the envelope - shooting at f2 in lower light - that's where I began to have trouble. I would use it for a starter but be prepared to upgrade.

[animefx]

nice samples. thank you for this

 

Bonsoir à tous,

3 pics with the M9 and Cron.40mm ISO200 ,successivly @ f2,f4,f5,6 .

Thanks for looking .

Cheers .

[piblondin]

I'm curious to know if the OP ever got a 40mm and al M9. I used the 40mm on my M8 for a couple years and just upgraded to an M9. It was extremely useful as a 50mm equivalent on the M8--I'm wondering how others feel about it on the full frame M bodies.

[Hey You]

I love this lens. I bought it new in 1976, with a Leica CL. When I sold the CL I kept the lens, and used it on an M6 and now an M9. It’s still in immaculate condition.

Back in the 1980’s, this lens won me the Grand Prize in a competition sponsored by the Ville de Montreal. Here’s a link to a scan of that image :

Parade | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Several years ago I took it to Kazakhstan and Turkey, and was delighted with the results. Here’s a link to two images taken there : Gogol Park, Almaty | Flickr - Photo Sharing!.

Bazaar colours | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I still love the lens, but use it less than I used to. I’m getting too lazy to visualize where its frame lines would be.

[brill64]

i also like your portrait of Kevin Brown, the blue version

[jaapv]

I used this lens for a long time on my M8 and then M9 and loved it. I filed it so the 24 mm viewfinder frameline came up. But started running into focus problems.

It is possible the lens, as old and beat up as it was, was out of kilter. or that operator error was contributing to not getting the focus sharp at times. It was not tight.

In any case, I talked with a dealer who opined, as a good salesman would; "what do you expect from a 40-year-old lens that was designed specifically for another camera and that the company warned not to use with this one?"

I decided to eliminate one variable from the equation and got a 35 mm 'cron.

In response to your question, it did serve me well for a while. But when I started pushing the envelope - shooting at f2 in lower light - that's where I began to have trouble. I would use it for a starter but be prepared to upgrade.

If you get a good example it is as reliable and tight as any newer lens. Focussing is unproblematic on the vast majority of these lenses.

I think Leica's "warning"at the time was more to prevent the lens from eating into Summicron-M sales.

[Hey You]

Slightly off-topic (but relevant) . .

The release of the M-240 is imminent and this camera will permit focussing with almost any lens.

Leica always resisted adding coding for the 40 mm lens on the grounds that there might be problems focussing.

Leica no longer has a reason to resist adding coding for this lens to its firmware.

They recently added coding for the 135 mm (another lens with focussing issues). Why not for the 40 mm Summicron-C?

[iedei]

the 40 Summicron is so good that i have never had the urge to want a 35mm Summicron. It's amazing on the M8.....i think it is a must-have lens.

[jaapv]

Slightly off-topic (but relevant) . .

The release of the M-240 is imminent and this camera will permit focussing with almost any lens.

Leica always resisted adding coding for the 40 mm lens on the grounds that there might be problems focussing.

Leica no longer has a reason to resist adding coding for this lens to its firmware.

They recently added coding for the 135 mm (another lens with focussing issues). Why not for the 40 mm Summicron-C?

Because it is not an M lens. Being a German firm, Leica can be very stubbornly precise.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Erik Gunst Lund]

I was happy with it for a couple of years for everything except at night and evening, street lights etc will flare badly.

I have now replaced it with a new 50mm 2 Summicron, it has much better corrections and coatings.

[GLAUMAX]

The Rokkor 40mm is my favourite lens on a M8.

It has a real 3D effect and is less clinical than the Lux 50 Asph that I also own.

I also really like it on film.