New M and Macro + Wide angle

[chris_tribble]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does anyone have thoughts on following?

 

Q1.

I have an M macro bellows + Visoflex (vertical finder) - which works really well with 135, 90 and 50 mm focal lengths. With the new M will it be possible to connect the bellows directly to the M and dispense with the Visoflex body for macro work? Any thoughts on limitations / issues that might arise?

 

Q2

Frankenfinder vs EVF... I'm happy with the Frankenfinder with 18 + 21 mm lenses, but am attracted by the possibility of not having to switch between an external finder and VF for focusing / framing. So far as I can see the EVF should give a WYSIWYG display from ultrawides up. Thoughts? One less thing to carry in the bag...

 

Q3

R wide angle vs M wide angle. One of the main reasons why I bought into M cameras was for lenses in the 21-35 range. Would there be any reason for considering wide R lenses if you already have good M wides?

 

Thanks!

[giordano]

Q1: No problems in principle, except of course from having c.40mm less extension available. There could be silly problems: e.g. does the rear mount of the bellows physically fit the M body; having fitted it is it possible to work the lens release button on the body to remove it?

 

Q2: Don't see why not. Depends largely on how happy one is with (a) using the EVF and ( with focusing when using the Frankenfinder.

 

Q3: Possibly some retrofocus R wides might beat some older, non-retrofocus (or only slightly retrofocus) M lenses of the same focal length (usual story, oblique angles, digital sensor). Only way to find out, I'm sure, will be to test, when the gear is available.

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

...Would there be any reason for considering wide R lenses if you already have good M wides?...

I have no experience with wider than 21mm R lenses but 21, 24 and 28mm M lenses are better than their R counterparts. Now one could expect less color shifts with R lenses perhaps, i don't know.

[wlaidlaw]

Chris,

 

You can certainly fit a Novoflex bellows straight onto an M body - see pic of bellows with LEIEL adapter and 135 T-E. Not sure about Leica B-II. Less extension may be an advantage. I often find the extension with a Visoflex plus the bellows, is too much and certainly for me, this will be a useful tool with the 65mm Elmar plus the micrometer focus on the Novoflex.

 

The problem with R lenses on M bodies for everyday use as opposed to tripod or sandbag for long lenses, is balance, weight and bulk. I looked at getting an Elmarit-R 19mm f2.8 for a lens wider than the Biogon 25, which after I swapped my WATE for a Summicron 28 and cash, was the widest I had. By the time I had an R to M adapter on, it was just too big and heavy, with the weight well forward, so I opted for one of the very neat Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 lenses. It turns out to be the first decent CV lens I have had and once I got the hang of working round the vignetting, very nice to use.

 

Wilson

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!

[Peter H]

Wilson, how do you focus with that set up? Do you do it by calculation and trial and error?

[k-hawinkler]

Chris,

 

Even if the optional handgrip of the new M should get in the way of the protruding lower part of the Bellows II - I certainly don't know if that is the case - that would be a small problem, easily fixed with some OUFRO/16469 rings. I have that problem when I attach my Nikon D3 with adapter straight to the Bellows II without the Visoflex and solve it with those rings. Each ring gives 10 mm spacing IIRC.

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wilson, how do you focus with that set up? Do you do it by calculation and trial and error?

 

Peter,

 

I don't or at least I won't be until my M-240 arrives. It was just an illustration to show that at least a Novoflex bellows can fit straight onto an M body, without a Visoflex between. I suppose you could do it with trial and error but it would be a real trial with a lot of errors

 

Wilson

 

PS Finally my Novoflex bellows purchase some years ago, may not look like such a weird idea now. W

[pgk]

Q1 - looks to me as though the M's versatility in this respect will make all sorts of things possible and will be limited only by availability of adapters - and there are all sorts already available. The lack of a protruding prism housing means that possibilities might be extended even further.

 

Q2 - unless you prefer the rangefinder for precise focus then this sounds ok to me.

 

Q3 - I've used various R wides on an M8 and agree with the comments already made regarding bulk, balance, weight. Operating at working apertures might be an issue with an EVF, as might red edge, coding, and so on - ie there may be technical issues (which I am sure will be aired here). The only real advantages that I can see are; if you already own R wides they will be usable on a Leica body again, and, they will focus closer than M lenses. That said current, recently designed M wides are so good I'd suggest that older R lenses probably won't perform as well anyway. So if you already have good M wides I can't see the R options being particularly useful except in certain circumstances.

[luigi bertolotti]

Does anyone have thoughts on following?

 

Q1.

I have an M macro bellows + Visoflex (vertical finder) - which works really well with 135, 90 and 50 mm focal lengths. With the new M will it be possible to connect the bellows directly to the M and dispense with the Visoflex body for macro work? Any thoughts on limitations / issues that might arise?

 

Yes... but of course you lose the extension provided by the Viso Body... all the traditional computations on repro ratios are vanified : one of the ideas I'm toying with is that, for static macro, the Viso+vertical finder could even be kept for ease of framing (vertical finder is very good in this) , and the LCD used for fine tuning of the focus (even playing with diaph closure) , so overtaking also the possible misadjustements of Viso... but of course... we will see in practice at due time.

 

Q2

Frankenfinder vs EVF... I'm happy with the Frankenfinder with 18 + 21 mm lenses, but am attracted by the possibility of not having to switch between an external finder and VF for focusing / framing. So far as I can see the EVF should give a WYSIWYG display from ultrawides up. Thoughts? One less thing to carry in the bag...

 

Yes, my idea too : the EVF could act as the "single addon VF" : to be verified the performance in low light and interiors (in which one can have "spot lights" that I don't know which risks can have seeing into an EVF) I suppose that in some situations there's nothing good like a good modern VF like the 21 or the 18 or the Franken (which I haven't)

Q3

R wide angle vs M wide angle. One of the main reasons why I bought into M cameras was for lenses in the 21-35 range. Would there be any reason for considering wide R lenses if you already have good M wides?

 

Thanks!

I don't think... unless one searches for some focal in which a used R can be an intriguing alternative...say, the 19 if one thinks of the M 18... (but only if R 19 is significantly cheaper) ... the 15 3,5/2,8 for R could be one of the most interesting (probably it's even not so much bulkier than a costly WATE...) , but it looks scarce in the market

Edited October 9, 2012 by luigi bertolotti

[gravastar]

....Q3

R wide angle vs M wide angle. One of the main reasons why I bought into M cameras was for lenses in the 21-35 range. Would there be any reason for considering wide R lenses if you already have good M wides? .....

 

One reason is if you need a zoom function. The Wide Angle Tri-Elmar 16-18-21mm is reported to be a true zoom so the EVF should be ideal for that as well as the 21-35mm Vario Elmar-R f3.5-4 and 28-90mm Vario Elmarit-R. The zoom is useful for scenes where you don't want to crop and the final print is on canvas with the image wrapped around the edges. The edge wrap has to be allowed for in the original composition.

 

Bob.

Edited October 9, 2012 by gravastar

[chris_tribble]

Thanks!

 

Q1/ I should have checked before I asked. You can't fit the M directly to the bellows as it doesn't slide far enough back - advantage Novoflex! Shouldn't be a big issue as I have Viso 2 so can lock up the mirror and flip the release lever out of the way. That way I have a choice of the vertical Viso finder (as ever) or the EVF. I suppose it would be possible to get an extension tube made with the appropriate M mounts and dispense with the Viso finder (or find something from the Viso back catalogue) - but this hardly feels worth the bother (though a fixed extension tube might be an interesting solution for hand-held macro work ... Anyone aware of such a thing?

 

Q2/ The proof of the pudding will be in the eating...

 

Q3/ Good to hear - I'm glad I'm not in the market for any more wide glass! My 18 Zeiss is fine for the small number of occasions I need it, as is my older 21 / 2.8.

 

What fun! I'm advised that I'm on the top of my dealer's list - just a case of waiting now!

[chris_tribble]

One reason is if you need a zoom function. The Wide Angle Tri-Elmar 16-18-21mm is reported to be a true zoom so the EVF should be ideal for that as well as the 21-35mm Vario Elmar-R f3.5-4 and 28-90mm Vario Elmarit-R. The zoom is useful for scenes where you don't want to crop and the final print is on canvas with the image wrapped around the edges. The edge wrap has to be allowed for in the original composition.

 

Bob.

 

And for this too... It certainly looks as if an R zoom would be a cheaper option than a Tr-Elmar! Hadn't thought about that (though I've also lived without the Tri-elmar thus far, and R wide / medium varios are big heavy beasts from what I've seen....

[k-hawinkler]

Thanks!

 

Q1/ I should have checked before I asked. You can't fit the M directly to the bellows as it doesn't slide far enough back - advantage Novoflex! Shouldn't be a big issue as I have Viso 2 so can lock up the mirror and flip the release lever out of the way. That way I have a choice of the vertical Viso finder (as ever) or the EVF. I suppose it would be possible to get an extension tube made with the appropriate M mounts and dispense with the Viso finder (or find something from the Viso back catalogue) - but this hardly feels worth the bother (though a fixed extension tube might be an interesting solution for hand-held macro work ... Anyone aware of such a thing?

 

Q2/ The proof of the pudding will be in the eating...

 

Q3/ Good to hear - I'm glad I'm not in the market for any more wide glass! My 18 Zeiss is fine for the small number of occasions I need it, as is my older 21 / 2.8.

 

What fun! I'm advised that I'm on the top of my dealer's list - just a case of waiting now!

 

 

 

Correct, the M9 doesn't fit directly on the Bellows II as one cannot twist the camera on.

 

However, using a minimum of three OUFRO/16469 rings, the M9 can be attached without the Visoflex.

[wlaidlaw]

Chris/K-H,

 

JC says that there has been a 41mm M to M extension tube made at one time and he has one. Once he gets home he is going to see if it has a code (letters or digits) marked on it or if he can determine this. I suspect it is going to fall into the "hens teeth" or "rocking horse poo" category. I have contacted a number of manufacturers with a view to making a 41mm "NOVISO" adapter but no luck so far. A definite "not for the time being" from Leitax and no response at all from the others. I would be happy to commission 50 and sell them via the forum.

 

Wilson

 

PS Don't suggest Novoflex. A few years ago, they wanted €250 for LEIMAR top hat adapter for the 65mm Elmar head to their bellows. It is out of production but they still had the drawings. The sort of thing a decent machinist could knock up in 30 minutes from a small cylindrical alloy billet. I will send Amadeo Muscelli an email to see if he is interested. W

Edited October 9, 2012 by wlaidlaw

[chris_tribble]

Wilson - I'll give Malcolm Taylor a ring. He might be up for it!

[chris_tribble]

Wilson - I've spoken to Malcolm and he's interested and has some ideas. I'll p.m. you.

 

This might be an interesting solution for directly attaching and viso-system devices (including telephoto lenses) to the M with an EVF fitted.

[luigi bertolotti]

About the prospected 41mm tube... I think that a tripod screw would be a useful feature... and this means that also a 90° rotation facility for the body would be appreciated: so it is not a totally trivial design, if someone likes to make it; otherwise, I could go to the repair shop that made for me the Telyt 800 - to - Viso adapter... he has a decent number of spare M mounts (male and female) and I can find someone that cuts for me the simple alloy tube... : but this would result a rough device...

[wlaidlaw]

About the prospected 41mm tube... I think that a tripod screw would be a useful feature... and this means that also a 90° rotation facility for the body would be appreciated: so it is not a totally trivial design, if someone likes to make it; otherwise, I could go to the repair shop that made for me the Telyt 800 - to - Viso adapter... he has a decent number of spare M mounts (male and female) and I can find someone that cuts for me the simple alloy tube... : but this would result a rough device...

 

Luigi,

 

Don't most of the longer Viso lenses have a tripod mount and rotation? For the shorter lenses, the M-240 has a more robust tripod thread than the M8/9.

 

Wilson

[chris_tribble]

A tripod clamp would make most sense... This might be easier to fit? But a good idea. Wilson - can you pass this thought on to Malcolm ... I can certainly envisage an extremely useful piece of kit...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wlaidlaw]

A tripod clamp would make most sense... This might be easier to fit? But a good idea. Wilson - can you pass this thought on to Malcolm ... I can certainly envisage an extremely useful piece of kit...

 

Chris,

 

Two points, firstly you would need a very substantial saddle so that QR plates, which most of us use, would clear the camera base and secondly, I would be keen to keep the price attractive. I would guess that adding a substantial saddle, could get close to doubling the price. I personally am happy to depend on tripod mounts on lenses, as all mine other than the Elmar 65/16464K have one. The Elmar would be fine just using the camera mount. I will ask Malcolm however and get two quotes.

 

I have been told for example on the R 80-200 f4 lens that the excellent Canon metal A2 tripod clamp will fit, rather than the rather flexible and very expensive Leica STA-1. A UK dealer has offered to do a sale or return on this clamp next week and I will advise if this fits.

 

Wilson