Preparing for the M

[chris_tribble]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lenses made for current mirrorless cameras won't work on the M because (a) their lens mount registers are too short, ( they rely on electronic control of aperture and focus from the camera body and © they're not designed for full-frame sensors.

 

A propos using auto-focus lenses in manual mode, I had an interesting experience in Grays of Westminster (major London Nikon dealer) yesterday. I ended up with a choice between an earlier Nikkor 300 mm f/4.5 IF-ED and a later Nikkor 300mm f/4.0 ED-IF for around the same price. My first thought was "Go for the most recent, fastest glass... " However - when I tried both lenses on the body, the one that was DESIGNED for manual focus was so much nicer to work with. It has a very smooth focus action and a very long throw so fine focus is very easy. By contrast, the modern lens with Auto/Manual options was horrid to focus manually. The action is INDIRECT and the focus throw very short.

 

I bought the f4.5.

 

PS - following all this, I had a word with the owner of the shop and he told me that they had supplied Aardman with 60 or 70 lenses for use in a recent stop-frame animation. ALL the lenses were older manual version.

[Advertisement]

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

[andyedward]

I suspect the better high iso performance will be THE standout benefit of the new M, and the new sensor will contribute towards making it by far the best digital leica ever produced. The MP is of course the best camera leica have ever produced (film OR digital), and if they could sell the MP in large quantities, then I'm sure leica would market it as the next big thing!

[wattsy]

I'm just going to have to wait for the M as it sleeps in a dry closet. I was able to obtain one that looks like it has never been used with box, case, and papers.

 

Sounds like a good buy. The 80 Summilux is definitely one of those classic lenses (a bit like the Hasselblad 110/F2) that makes it worth buying into the system just to shoot that lens.

[wattsy]

The MP is of course the best camera leica have ever produced (film OR digital),

 

I don't think so. The M4 knocks the MP into a cocked hat.

[k-hawinkler]

While traveling in Paris I purchased a Mint 180mm F2.8 Apo from the Leica store. When I tested it on my M9 I have found it to be less sharp than expected in the center. I called Leica in New Jersey and they indicated they will attempt to find the cause, so now I am in a quandary whether I should repair or return it. Any input about others similar experiences with lenses greatly appreciated.

 

 

Well, I have bought some older Leitz lenses and feel comfortable with an additional expense of up to 25% to have a lens repaired or CLA'ed. It's really your call. Some lenses are harder to find than others. I would check in the WIKI how many lenses of a certain type have been produced.

[FlorianM]

Interested to know what the priorities are for those who are getting the M.

 

 

I'm trying my best not to think about it. 2 months+ of it would drive me nuts. I'm only going to use my 50&28's to start. Keep in mind I'm coming from the M8 so I want to get re-aquainted to the new angles of view

 

The one lens I did think of picking up for it is the Nikon 105 or 135 DC, and a 50 Elmar, but that won't be for a while.

[sanyasi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In looking for existing adapters that would work with an M, I am seeing reference to lenses with internal aperture control as compared to setting aperture on the lenses itself. It sounds like the strong preference would be for lenses that have external ring control over aperture.

 

I get the basic point, but would anyone who is familiar with the issues and the distinction please comment? In particular, some of the references were to stopping down to meter.

 

What I am trying to figure out is what alternatives in the used equipment market are worth pursuing on the assumption that R lenses have gotten really expensive and are now in limited supply. I suspect that isn't an assumption anymore, but a fact.

 

Thanks

[chris_tribble]

In looking for existing adapters that would work with an M, I am seeing reference to lenses with internal aperture control as compared to setting aperture on the lenses itself. It sounds like the strong preference would be for lenses that have external ring control over aperture

 

Certainly my experience of getting a 300mm lens has been that although later autofocus / internally controlled aperture lenses can be used manually, it's not a nice experience, whereas professional lenses from the manual era give a very good experience. I've been looking at Nikon professional lenses with ED glass, or Canon L series FD mount, and for the moment have gone for an f4/5 Nikkor. Much as I love it, the idea of trying to manually focus my series 1 Canon EOS 300 f/2.8 L on the M is not attractive. Once I've tested things - and if I still decide I want that focal length and maximum aperture, I'll either look around for an FD fit Canon, check Nikon, or even get a Tokina AT-X 300mm SD if I can find one.

 

In brief - while an external aperture control ring is important, even more significant IMHO is the long throw and fine focus control that you get with a lens that was designed for this operation.

[wlaidlaw]

I think the "hot item" is going to be the 80-200/f4 Vario-Elmar R, which is why I bought one a couple of weeks ago. I got an exc++ lens for £600, which I think will seem a real bargain in a few months time. Scale focussed on the M9, it is as sharp as a pin. Have I understood correctly that Leica intend to offer 6 bit lens codes for some of the R lenses or will it just be a single code "R Lens mounted"? It is just nice for lens identification at a later point by looking at the EXIF.

 

Wilson

[gravastar]

.............Have I understood correctly that Leica intend to offer 6 bit lens codes for some of the R lenses or will it just be a single code "R Lens mounted"? It is just nice for lens identification at a later point by looking at the EXIF.

 

Wilson

 

As I understand, there is a single 6 bit code on the adapter which enables the R lens manual selection menu. It's your selection which is reported in the EXIF data. Otherwise there would have to be an adaptor for each lens and Leica would run out of 6 bit codes. Whether Leica will offer lens corrections based on your selection is unknown.

 

What I don't know is if the "correct" frame lines brought up by the adapter are also necessary for the adapter to be recognised. I hope not since there is a choice of frame lines available with the Leitax adaptors. eg 28/90 adaptor is ideally suited to the 28-90 Vario-Elmarit.

 

Does anyone know which framelines are displayed with the Leica adaptor?

 

Bob

[chris_tribble]

OUCH - I hadn't thought about that. For the Nikkor 300 f/4 I was planning get my Nikon to M mount machined so that it can be coded (from Ebay and very nicely engineered - Nikon F mount Nikkor AI lens to Leica M L/M LM mount adapter M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 | eBay) - at least it's then possible to have focal length recorded in Exif.

 

Like Wilson - I'm delighted I was able to get an 80-200 f/4 ... I've seen the neat permanent Leitax adaptation he's made + the lens mount solution. I'm debating if I go this way or get the Leica adaptor... at least it will solve this problem!

[andybarton]

There is only one 6 bit code - it's really for the adaptor and tells the camera that an R lens is attached. You then choose the lens from the menu. Choosing the correct lens, allows in camera corrections.

 

I don't think many people will be using the M viewfinder with R lenses.

[andybarton]

OUCH - I hadn't thought about that. For the Nikkor 300 f/4 I was planning get my Nikon to M mount machined so that it can be coded (from Ebay and very nicely engineered - Nikon F mount Nikkor AI lens to Leica M L/M LM mount adapter M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 | eBay) - at least it's then possible to have focal length recorded in Exif.

 

 

The M wouldn't know it was 300mm as there is no 6-bit code for a 300mm lens.

 

If your lens is not on the R-list, you cannot get any EXIF information recorded.

[rsh]

Glad I kept all of my R Lenses.

[jankap]

Of course I play in another class, but I can state, that live view is very useful.

My Telyt 500 Mirror was converted to EOS. To handle it on the Ricoh I have bought an EOS to M adapter. I don't know, if I shall keep my EOS 24/1.4. At the moment it works, at 1.4 only.

Jan

[colorflow]

While traveling in Paris I purchased a Mint 180mm F2.8 Apo from the Leica store. When I tested it on my M9 I have found it to be less sharp than expected in the center. I called Leica in New Jersey and they indicated they will attempt to find the cause, so now I am in a quandary whether I should repair or return it. Any input about others similar experiences with lenses greatly appreciated.

 

The APO 180 2.8 is one of Leica's best. My copy is simply stunning on both the Sony A900 and Nex7. How did you focus on the M9? The lens rotates way past infinity by design.

 

My quandry is whether I should go back to R mount when the M arrives or stay with the Leitax Sony mount. The in-camera stabilization of Sony DSLRs is a great help for long lenses.

[FrozenInTime]

The APO 180 2.8 is one of Leica's best. My copy is simply stunning on both the Sony A900 and Nex7. How did you focus on the M9? The lens rotates way past infinity by design.

 

One good thing about the 180/3,4 APO Telyt is that the infinity hardstop is infinity.

I bought one just before the M-240 announcement and have been using it on my Olympus OM-D.

However simultaniously focusing and framing is really difficult at less than infinity - I hope the M-240 has picture in picture live view with magnification.

[wlaidlaw]

There is only one 6 bit code - it's really for the adaptor and tells the camera that an R lens is attached. You then choose the lens from the menu. Choosing the correct lens, allows in camera corrections.

 

I don't think many people will be using the M viewfinder with R lenses.

 

Andy,

 

I think the point Bob may have been making and I had not thought about it, was that; is a particular frame line may be required, in order for the R lens code to say "hello" to the M-240 body. I hope not, as I would intend to paint in the R lens code in the pits milled into the Leitax adapter I have fitted to the 80-200. I have just checked and the Leitax adapter brings up the 35/135 lines in my M9. I don't know what lines the new R to M adapter brings up.

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[chris_tribble]

The M wouldn't know it was 300mm as there is no 6-bit code for a 300mm lens.

 

If your lens is not on the R-list, you cannot get any EXIF information recorded.

 

AH - great - one less thing to do in preparation!

[giordano]

In looking for existing adapters that would work with an M, I am seeing reference to lenses with internal aperture control as compared to setting aperture on the lenses itself. It sounds like the strong preference would be for lenses that have external ring control over aperture.

 

I get the basic point, but would anyone who is familiar with the issues and the distinction please comment? In particular, some of the references were to stopping down to meter.

 

As Chris says, you'll get the best user experience from a manual focus lens with an aperture ring (or aperture knob or whatever, a few manufacturers got bored with rings). Lenses where the diaphragm is spring-loaded to the smallest aperture are simplest because they work as if they were fully manual unless they're mounted on a body that has the right control mechanism. Examples: Leicaflex/R, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax K-mount.

 

Lenses where the diaphragm is spring-loaded to the widest aperture are less convenient because something has to hold the diaphragm closed to the aperture you've set. Examples are Pentax/Praktica etc. screw mount (where many of the lenses have Auto/Manual aperture switches) and Olympus OM (where each lens has a DoF preview button).

 

In my experience most AF lenses are very unpleasant to focus manually. Either the focus ring is too easy to move or it's too heavy to move smoothly - and either way the travel is usually far too short to be convenient. So far I've used nine or ten AF Nikkors and only the 14mm f/2.8 and 17-35mm f/2.8 have been anywhere near satisfactory for manual focusing.