Macro/Film: M or R?

[jibanes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have some macro photography work I would like to do, I own a M6 and have two options:

 

• Get a Macro-Elmar-M 90mm along with its macro adapter.
  
• Get a R-body (preferably a mechanical R6 or R6.2) and a Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm (used).
  

Which solution would be preferable to shoot subjects such as flowers given that I'm shooting color reversal film? A digital back/sensor is not necessary for this assignment. Samples would be appreciated.

 

Thank you.

[andybarton]

Go with the SLR every time. The Macro-Elmar M is a fine lens, but the M was never really made for macro work.

 

I have a 60 Macro-Elmarit-R and it is a fantastic lens. It's sharp and with a beautiful bokeh. I have used it with film, with a DMR back and now on a Nikon D700. It is equally good at infinity as it is when used as a macro. I sold my 50 Summicron-R and used this as my standard lens.

 

Examples are here:

 

COLOUR: NATURE

 

You might also consider a 100 Macro-Elmarit-R, an equally good lens, that allows you to shoot from slightly further back.

[wildlightphoto]

Go with the SLR every time. The Macro-Elmar M is a fine lens, but the M was never really made for macro work...

 

Seconded. Either the 60 Macro or 100 APO. Even at the same image size the SLR's advantage is parallax, which becomes very pronounced at close distances in particular being able to accurately see the spatial relationships between foreground, background and subject.

 

The R6 or R6.2 would be a fine choice because it has an excellent viewfinder and mirror pre-release.

[LondonR]

Seriously, macro on a Leica M - madness. But fun. On the rare occasion I shoot macro - mostly for my partner who is a makeup artist and needs close up stuff - I always use an SLR. Focus is usually achieved by me moving in and out as opposed to the focus ring. Which means any macro lens is fine - adapted or otherwise.

[spydrxx]

Although I'd recommend using a SLR for macro work, you have another option which is the Visoflex...ancient, sort of geeky, but I've used them for years and they get the job done. In fact, when I bought my first Leica in 1968, one of the compelling reasons was that I could convert my rangefinder to a SLR with a Visoflex.

[tobey bilek]

R camera with mirror lock up, R6 or later. The lock up works with a cable release or special attachment that threads into a place near the lens mount.

 

60 is a good copy lens. 100 APO gives some working distance and smaller angle of view less background clutter.

 

90 Elmar is a very good lens and is the only current M series 90 that works equally well close and far. Image quality is right up with the 90 ASPH at distance. 1:3 may not be close enough for your needs, that is a subject field of 3"x 4.5". The VF is corrected for parallax, but there is still a difference in angle of view.

 

My personal way to work is R + 100 2.8 APO or a viso on M camera with bellows and 90 2.8 lens head or 134 4.0 lens head.

Or is use the lens heads on Digital Nikon slur.

 

For pure quality, the 100 APO is without peer. The special elpro for 1:1 to 1:2 has no loss of quality.

[masjah]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

R camera with mirror lock up, R6 or later. The lock up works with a cable release or special attachment that threads into a place near the lens mount.

 

60 is a good copy lens. 100 APO gives some working distance and smaller angle of view less background clutter.

 

90 Elmar is a very good lens and is the only current M series 90 that works equally well close and far. Image quality is right up with the 90 ASPH at distance. 1:3 may not be close enough for your needs, that is a subject field of 3"x 4.5". The VF is corrected for parallax, but there is still a difference in angle of view.

 

My personal way to work is R + 100 2.8 APO or a viso on M camera with bellows and 90 2.8 lens head or 134 4.0 lens head.

Or is use the lens heads on Digital Nikon slur.

 

For pure quality, the 100 APO is without peer. The special elpro for 1:1 to 1:2 has no loss of quality.

 

+1 with regard to the 100 APO R and its dedicated Elpro.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello jibanes,

 

Welcome to the Forum.

 

Why not have both?

 

In the middle 1970's I traded my collapsable 90mm Elmar for a 135mm Tele-Elmar because I preferred the narrower angle of view, the greater degree of compression & its improved image quality @ all distances.

 

I also liked that it was a macro lens.

 

I had a Visoflex I & various threaded tubes for many year & found the arrangement unwieldy. I later got a Minolta 101 & an adapter allowing me to use it w/ my Tele-Elmar's lens head on a no-name bellows. After acquiring Minolta's 300s Tele-extender (Designed & built during the height of the Leitz-Minolta cooperation.) I was able to extend the previous 1 : 2 image/object range of the T-E lens head + Bellows to 1 : 1 w/ improved image quality.

 

There was something else: It was a more versatile outfit in less space.

 

By choosing a rangefinder lens w/ capabilities of being used w/ bellows on a reflex body I now had:

 

A rangefinder lens for normal distances.

 

A reflex camera lens for normal distances.

 

Sometimes one is better. Sometimes the other. I have both.

 

I also have a macro lens.

 

That it is a manual lens & I use stop down metering has never been an issue for me.

 

What I am suggesting here is using a rangefinder lens capable of Infinity to maco on an SLR to expand your possibilities @ the loss of very little convenience in most closeup & even normal distance situations while @ the same time having a complementary but conceptionally & operationally different rangefinder lens for normal distances w/ the same focal length be it 90, 135 or whatever.

 

The second body takes the same space as a Visoflex & takes equivalent accessories.

 

I find I do normal distance photography differently when I use the Tele-Elmar as a rangefinder lens than I do if I use it as a reflex lens.

 

The now effectively 2 lenses are similar in certain respects but different in concept & operation. Like pre-visualizing B&W is similar to but different than previsualizing color.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[nikau]

I had a 60mm for years on my SL and SL2 (now SL2 and R6.2) but sold it in favour of a 100mm Apo. I far prefer the 100 not just for its image quality but the longer working distances and perspective it offers. However, the 60 took stunning photos on Kodachrome.

[SteveYork]

The two macro elmarits in the R mount absolutely rock. Two of the signature lenses for those cameras. I would only opt for an M macro if I already had a M system and didn't want a second system.

[andybarton]

Here is a panorama I had a bit of fun with last night. I used the 60 Macro-Elmarit, in portrait orientation and stitched 8 shots together.

 

http://url removed (2.5MB)

 

I have taken it down now.

 

And here is a 100% crop

 

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!

[jibanes]

Here is a panorama I had a bit of fun with last night. I used the 60 Macro-Elmarit, in portrait orientation and stitched 8 shots together.

 

http://url removed (2.5MB)

 

I will leave it there for 24 hours

 

And here is a 100% crop

 

[ATTACH]252142[/ATTACH]

 

Beautiful, which camera body did you use?

[andybarton]

My D700. It's just a touch over-sharpened - I need to go back and re-do it.

[tgray]

The 90 Macro M is a fun little lens to use with it's adapter. But it's just a safety net that gets you a little closer - it's not really a suitable macro lens. I have the Macro M and I throw the adapter in my bag when I travel since it extends my capabilities without taking up hardly any space. Use an SLR if you have any intention of doing macro work.

 

As a lens though, the 90 Macro M is a great and compact 90 for normal use.

[jibanes]

The 90 Macro M is a fun little lens to use with it's adapter. But it's just a safety net that gets you a little closer - it's not really a suitable macro lens. I have the Macro M and I throw the adapter in my bag when I travel since it extends my capabilities without taking up hardly any space. Use an SLR if you have any intention of doing macro work.

 

As a lens though, the 90 Macro M is a great and compact 90 for normal use.

 

Would you have some macro pictures to share?

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Andy,

 

Nice photo.

 

You should consider making it a sticky along w/ an explanation of how you did it. You deal w/ a number of issues & situations well.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[tgray]

Would you have some macro pictures to share?

 

I can't recall which photos used the adapter, but here's a bunch I've taken with the lens:

 

Flickr: ezwal's stuff tagged with 90mm40

 

Some them obviously weren't shot with the adapter. Any of the portraits and/or outdoor shots didn't use it.

[jibanes]

Going sl"R" (which is certainly a possibility) or even medium-format slr (hassy) is possible, although there is then the disadvantage of having too many choices which, IMO, leads to nothing good. I'd rather have one good camera with several lenses than different cameras with different (yet not interchangeable) lenses. Then what happens when you go on vacation or road trip, do you take all your bodies?

 

I agree that macro is "difficult" or not clearly possible with rangefinders in general, this is not what it was meant to do. The major issue, in my mind is that having multiple bodies means increasing maintenance costs.

 

A visioflex is completely out of question, but the macro-elmar-M + adapter allows an object field of 72x108mm while the Macro-60-R allows an object field of 48x72mm, that's about a ratio of 1:2, in film, this is huge.

 

Another difference is the aperture, is there a flash ring that would fit the macro-elmar-M?

 

 

Jerome

[giordano]

is there a flash ring that would fit the macro-elmar-M?

 

Probably - but it would block the range/viewfinder so you wouldn't be able to frame or focus.

 

If you're serious about macro you need through-the-lens viewing; if you just want to be able to focus close-ish once in a while, the Macro-Elmar-M may be enough.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jibanes]

Probably - but it would block the range/viewfinder so you wouldn't be able to frame or focus.

 

If you're serious about macro you need through-the-lens viewing; if you just want to be able to focus close-ish once in a while, the Macro-Elmar-M may be enough.

 

I bought the Macro-Elmar-M this morning, which I've tried and amazingly, I found that, using the provided adapter, the object field is a good compromise and might be good for the job. There's also several important considerations such as there is no mirror movement as opposed to a slr, hence, the need for a tripod is reduced (considering the lens is "at best" f/4). Its size also makes it easy to carry around in a pocket, which is also very convenient. I will try to shoot in telephoto mode with it to see how it performs.

 

I will develop the film tomorrow but so far, I believe that it might be a good compromise.