M8 Lens question

[bingaloid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

I am considering a move from a Mamiya 7 w/65mm lens to the M8 but I don't know which is the closest equivalent lens, I assume it's either the 35 or the 28.

 

For casual stuff I've been using a DMC-LC1 and generally have it between 28 and 35. And a long time ago I had an M3 with a 35mm Summicron, which I liked except for the width of the 35mm film format.

 

Can anyone do the math, or explain the math, and let me know which lens will most closely replicate the field of view that I'm used to?

 

Just in case, I generally shoot urban landscape types of things - think Eggleston or Koudelka - and I'm looking for a "naturally" wide field of view without distortion.

 

Thanks in advance for all your help!

[Advertisement]

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

[philipotto]

Sorry for my hasty advice earlier. Which was incorrect.

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!

[robertwright]

that last response is not correct. you have to think about angle of view.

 

The 65 on the M7 is my favourite lens also, and has an angle of view of 69 degrees per their specs. mamiya says it is closest to the 32mm in 35mm terms.

 

This means that the 24 or 25mm Leica or Zeiss is closest.

 

this matches my experience, the 35 (effective) (28mm actual) is too tight to match and the 28 (effective) (21 actual) is too wide.

 

If you cannot afford the excellent Leica 24 the Zeiss 25 is a great alternative. You will however have to email Zeiss to get a mount matching the 35 so that it brings up the correct frameline pair (24-35). the stock zeiss finder brings up the 28mm framelines afaik.

 

Even with that lens, it still will not feel like the mamiya 65 since the 6x7 format is much more square-ish. It will feel a little too wide I believe. Still for me, the 35 (effective) feels tight because the frame is so rectangular. What is nice about the M8 is that the 24mm (actual) uses the entire viewfinder, which is how the 65 on the Mamiya 7 utilizes the viewfinder. if you wear glasses it might be too hard to see however.

[MP3]

I think not that way, Philip.

 

Is Mamiya 7 a medium format camera? It's 80mm is just equivalent to 50mm at 135 format. So 66 on Mamiya is on a slightly wide side, say 28mm in 135. If so, david will need a 21mm on M8. It's my rough guess. Anybody can come up with a more exact calculation?

 

Best

Matthew

[davidmires]

65mm on a 6x7 = 35mm on 35mm = 28mm on M8

(roughly)

Edit: Matthew and Robert posted while I wasn't looking. 24mm on M8 is probably closer...

[808]

The 65/4 has 69° angle of view according to Mamiya, so 24mm would be your best bet (84° on 35mm, ~67° on the M8). Keep in mind though that your Mamiya is 6x7 ratio while the M8 is 2x3 - you might want to adjust for that by going a little bit wider on the lens and crop...

[bingaloid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@all,

thanks for the fast and well considered responses.

 

The 24mm Leica sounds like the right choice, and since it's not _that_ much more than the 35mm Summicron, it doesn't effect the decision as much as it might.

 

I understand what people are saying about the frame difference, but I'm actually looking forward to the 4x6 frame. The Mamiya (and a Pentax 67 before that) was my way of combining a 4x5 with an M3. The idea to finally go all digital is because the M8 has all the benefits of a handheld, all the lens quality of the Mamiya and something closer to the proportion of sheet film. And 10mp is plenty for my uses. Plus, all the photos people have been posting from the M8 are the closest thing I've ever seen to a digital camera capturing a film-like quality of light.

 

So, here's a little follow-up question:

I'm hesitant to go with the Zeiss because of all the other issues surrounding the M8, is this just being superstitious on my part or is there some kind of objective sense to sticking with a Leica manufactured lens? (i.e. will the Leica supplied filters be calibrated to an all Leica system and therefore could be expected to perform/conform in a more standardized way?)

 

thanks,

David

[robertwright]

this my concern too, there is the issue of coding and the lens mount. Others on this list have successfully obtained the correct mount to swap with the existing zeiss mount so that is half the problem. Then it becomes about durably hand coding the lens. Sean Reid's site has some ideas about which lens to code for to provide the right amount of vignetting correction. But you could simply experiment with a sharpie to see what works best.

 

I think ultimately if you change lenses a lot, the sharpie may not be such a good idea, it rubs off easily.

 

Any other ideas short of machining the mount to durably hand code lenses?

 

the price difference is 3:1...

[carstenw]

Some claim that the Leica 24mm f/2.8 Asph. is the best lens Leica makes for the M. I am not sure I agree with that, but it is a truly stunning lens. Unless the price is really too high, I would go for it, even though the Zeiss is cheaper. Other Zeiss lenses have less lens coding trouble and better performance compared to the Leica equivalents, but the 24 is special. However, the 28 is almost as close to the original field of view of the Mamiya 7 as the 24, so there you have two choices, a superb f/2 lens and a real bargain, the f/2.8, which is also the most compact lens in Leica's current lineup. Unless you really need that little bit extra, I would go for either the 28/2.8 at a much lower price and more compact form, or the f/2 lens, which will give you a viable night lens.

[andit]

Hi David,

You're coming from a 6x7 format. On 6x7 the diagnol (which gives you essentially the same as human sight) works out to 92.2mm (on a standard 24x36 frame that is 43.27). If you're using a 65mm on the MF, this works out to 29.11 equivalent on full frame 35. Since the M8 has a field of view factor of 1.33 this works out to 21.89mm on the M8.

 

What this all means is that in order to duplicate the magnification factor on the M8, you'll have to look at using a 28mm lens. This will give you 1:1 between the Mamiya 7 and the M8. However, if you are looking at attaining the same angle of coverage as you're used to, you'll be looking at the 21mm (this will give you a magnification reduction but this is the only way to compensate for the 1.33 field of view factor).

 

Hope this helps you.

Andreas

[andit]

Just out of interest, the diagnol of the M8's sensor is 32.45mm (18 x 27 sensor size). That would mean the closest on the M8 to normal vision would be a 35mm lens. For this calculation the field of view factor becomes meaningless, since normal is considered the length of the diagnol. Basically that also means for the M8, that anything over 35mm would be considered "tele" and anything below would be considered "wide". Just some more totally useless information that you can use to bore the people around the BBQ to death with...

Andreas

[wlaidlaw]

I think the lens coding issue only becomes a problem if you are using an IR filter on a lens wider than 28mm. I am having no problems using a Zeiss 21mm Biogon on the M8 but as I don't have a filter for it yet, have not come across the cyan vignetting that is an almost inevitable consequence. I am using a Zeiss 35 Biogon, which I think is a superb lens. I get no significant cyan vignetting with a B+W 486 filter. Whereas I think the Zeiss lenses may not have the ultimate sharpness or colour rendition of the Leica lenses when wide open, they do have other advantages. They maintain their performance better at smaller apertures and the focus shift with changing aperture seems less than the Leica equivalent.

 

The distributed processing of the light path of the Zeiss lenses does require more elements and might be seen to be less elegant than Leica's designs It results in a heavier lens but it makes the tolerances on the lens greater. This means that you are less likely to get a non-optimum lens than a few people have been getting with their Summicron and Summilux ASPH 35mm's.

 

In the end, if you can manage it, contact your local Leica group and the likelihood is that there will be people with both the Zeiss and Leica lenses. Try them and get whichever you prefer. I personally preferred the Zeiss for my 21 and 35mm lenses but the Leica for my 90mm against the Zeiss 85mm. The Zeiss 25mm design is supposed to be one of their best. Their previous 25mm Distagon was average to poor (the one I had, I thought was poor) and I would guess they took some notice of people's ambivalent opinion of that one.

 

If Leica, as we hope, has been listening to people on this forum, we may get menu lens selection on updated firmware at some time in the (near???) future.

 

Wilson

[ChrisC]

The 65/4 has 69° angle of view according to Mamiya, so 24mm would be your best bet (84° on 35mm, ~67° on the M8). Keep in mind though that your Mamiya is 6x7 ratio while the M8 is 2x3 - .......

 

David - I too am downsizing from the Mamiya 7 [and other rollfilm equipment] and needed to answer the same question you posed. Un-mathematically, and ignoring ratio differences between the two formats, I had determined that the longest side of the Mamiya7/65 mm combination gave an equivalent view width that a [approximately] 33 mm lens would on the longest side of the 35 mm format. A 24 mm lens on the M8 will give you the field equivalent of a 32 mm lens on a 35 mm format. Sorry if that is too 'wordy' but I can't bear the wretched term 'full-frame'.

 

I await my M8, and the Elmar 24 mm lens will be my first lens.

 

................Chris

[sean_reid]

Optically, there's no reason not to go with the Zeiss. Its character is somewhat different from that of the Leica 24 but the 25 Biogon is not a "lesser" lens. The logistics of lens mounts and coding, however, certainly argue in favor of the Elmarit. Even when the mount is swapped on the 25 Biogon, any hand-coding on it will wear off with time (although "refreshing" the markings from time to time can work). The best approach with the Zeiss would be to remove the bayonet and have it machined for the code indentations but, for obvious reasons, no one offers that service commercially.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[robertwright]

The aborted time I tried lens coding with a sharpie I noticed it transfered to the mount and got into the edges around the lens detector. I didn't like that, although I am not sure if it means harm in the long term.

 

I have the older version (midland) of the 21 elmarit, and I can see it is challenged at 2.8 near the edges. I am pretty sure the zeiss 21 or 25 would do better, but it is this coding issue that keeps me from pulling the trigger. The two lenses are about even price wise.

 

I really do want to get the 25, but I am suffering lens burnout right now, just getting aquainted with the "new" focal lengths and their respective looks has been an adjustment. It is strange to see the familiar drawing of my 35 asph cron for example, but with a reduced field of view. I do a double take every time, it feels wider than the frame allows, has anyone else experienced this? Also the fact that the frame lines are conservative means that I believe the "effective" or "real world" multiplier is more like 1.25 and not 1.33. Said another way, my 28 feels wider than it's supposed 35, the 35 feels wider than it's supposed 47 or so, etc. The 21 does feel like a 28, except for the barrel distortion which is my new friend I guess...

 

The Mamiya 7 was my camera also, I pretty much shot everything with it, portraits, travel, features, etc. But scanning medium format 400 color neg is no match for the M8 at 640 iso even.

[bingaloid]

@all,

Thanks for all the responses, the added information is really helpful and I'm glad that others have made this transition before and for what sounds like similar reasons - I guess I'm not as big a fool as the price of making this move made me feel.

 

So, with all this feedback I'm going back and forth between the Leica 24/2.8, the 28/2 and the 28/2.8

 

The analysis about the similarities between 6x7@65mm :: 2x3@24 or 28 seems to indicate that 28 is a closer match to "feel" and 24 is a better match for "look" - if that makes any sense.

 

There's about a 50% price difference between the 28/2.8 and the other two, which is enough that I'm curious what the quality differences are.

 

If I had to weigh out my preferences, barrel distortion is least preferred, weight/compactness is in the middle and unfortunately I do have to consider price, but I'd rather not sacrifice quality for $1400 since I plan on using this lens for many years. So I think the right decision is to spend on the higher priced lenses.

 

I generally shoot at f11 or f16 in more or less open light, though with digital I'm finding I shoot in more and more of a variety of situations and reducing the bulk down from the Mamiya 7 to a Leica I am hoping to finally be able to literally take the camera everywhere I want to go. I never change lenses and I don't wear glasses (though I can see the day when having a pair of cheaters on me at all time, and it's getting closer and closer.)

 

It sounds like you can see the differences in quality with a wide open lens at the edges and a stopped down lens in the sharpness, is that correct?

 

If so, it also sounds like the 24mm/2.8 and the 28mm/2 are generally considered very high quality and good for all-purpose types like me, but maybe the 28 is going to show just a little or no barrel distortion and the 24 might have just a touch (i.e. when shooting into a corner)?

 

I've been looking through the flickr collections for the two lenses:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/elmarit24mm/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/elmarit28mm/

 

it's really an interesting way to try to evaluate a lens.

[bingaloid]

 

There's about a 50% price difference between the 28/2.8 and the other two, which is enough that I'm curious what the quality differences are.

 

If I had to weigh out my preferences, barrel distortion is least preferred, weight/compactness is in the middle and unfortunately I do have to consider price, but I'd rather not sacrifice quality for $1400 since I plan on using this lens for many years. So I think the right decision is to spend on the higher priced lenses.

 

 

Well, I have to correct myself here.

 

The difference is in lens speed and apparently some vignetting if you use the 28/2.8 with film.

 

After reading other posts on this forum and a number of other sites, I'm starting to think the 28/2.8 is an amazing deal and probably shouldn't be passed up unless you really need a faster lens (which I don't).

 

And, through some comparison viewings, I can certainly see distortion in the 24 that isn't present in the 28 - so, for me, that settles that question.

[wlaidlaw]

David,

 

If you are commonly shooting at f11 or f16, I would go for the Zeiss lenses every time. If you look at "Mr. Leica is Always Best", Erwin Puts, even he says that at smaller apertures, the Zeiss outperforms the Leica glass, not least because of the Zeiss lenses minimised focal shift. Zeiss invented the wide angle lens and have maintained progress ever since. The 28mm Biogon has always been a stunningly good lens and the latest iteration is no exception. I was very tempted but in the end, decided it was just too close to my 35mm. If you don't need that f2 of the wonderful 28mm Summicron, you can save a lot on money by going the Zeiss route. It is still a bit cheaper than the Elmarit. If you are going to shoot wide open at f2.8 all the time or need the f2, you have little option but to go Leica. I tried the f1.9 28mm Cosina Voigtlander and it is not a bad lens by any standards but you are comparing it to three exceptional lenses, the Elmarit, the Summicron and the Biogon.

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[J_Brittenson]

The 6x7 format has a taller aspect ratio than 135, so will pick up more foreground. This in turn will make lenses appear a little wider in practice. I personally simply divide by two; the 80mm on my Mamiya 7 shoots roughly like a 40mm on 135, or a 28 on the M8. The 43mm shoots like a 21. I don't use the 65 but the 24 sounds like a good starting point on the M8. A 24 really isn't particularly wide, even on 135.

[bingaloid]

David,

 

If you are commonly shooting at f11 or f16, I would go for the Zeiss lenses every time. If you look at "Mr. Leica is Always Best", Erwin Puts, even he says that at smaller apertures, the Zeiss outperforms the Leica glass, not least because of the Zeiss lenses minimised focal shift. Zeiss invented the wide angle lens and have maintained progress ever since. The 28mm Biogon has always been a stunningly good lens and the latest iteration is no exception. I was very tempted but in the end, decided it was just too close to my 35mm. If you don't need that f2 of the wonderful 28mm Summicron, you can save a lot on money by going the Zeiss route. It is still a bit cheaper than the Elmarit. If you are going to shoot wide open at f2.8 all the time or need the f2, you have little option but to go Leica. I tried the f1.9 28mm Cosina Voigtlander and it is not a bad lens by any standards but you are comparing it to three exceptional lenses, the Elmarit, the Summicron and the Biogon.

 

Wilson

 

Thanks Wilson.

 

Can you, or someone else, please explain what I'd be giving up by not having a coded lens?

 

Thanks,

David