Have M240 - sell my M9 and buy a Fuji X-E1?

[sydkugelmass]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't own the M but the M9 and the X Pro1, instead. The 18-55mm is very useful and undoubtdely an excellent lens, with a very good image stabilisation. The final fact, in my situation, is that the best I can extract from the X Pro1 is a 60 by 40 cm enlargement. Even with the (oldish) M9 a 90 by 60 cm enlargement is perfectly possible with a generally better perceived small scale detail. I would explore the path about adapters and a good zoom lens on the M. Note that, contrary to what is commonly stated in many places, I found the high ISO performance of the Fuji very good, but not SO stellar, especially on enlargements, whichever noise reduction and presharpening protocol I could try. Going Leica is good to me.

[Advertisement]

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

[vikasmg]

I find with my M that I leave the R 28-90 nearly all day at times, depending on the venue of course. I use the Novoflex LEM/LER adapter with no remorse. Why wait for Leica to come out with their M-R adapter sometime (?) this year.

 

OK, I goy hold of a Vario Emar R 28-90 f3.5-4.5 and a Novoflex adapter. I'm afraid I don't think it works for me. It's a heavier combination and very bulky to manage. In poor light it's difficult to hold steady and focusing works is fun but I suspect the pleasure is mostly because of the novelty of being able to do this on a Leica M camera. If you are interested some results are at Vikas M Gore | Vario Elmar R 28-90

 

I can't help thinking the XE-1 would be so much easier and would still allow me to do everything manually if I want to.

 

- Vikas

[algrove]

Sorry to hear that is too much for you. I love that 28-90 lens, but I mostly use it on tripod, but whenever the situation warrants I use it hand held.

 

Can you get your hands on a 21-35 or 60 macro or 100 macro? The 80/1.4 is nice, but not light and even though it is the same cell as the 75/1.4 it weighs much more than the 75.

 

M wise, try the MATE 28-35-50/4.0. Get the E49 model. They are no longer made, but nice mid zooms.

[Thomas Chen]

Can you get your hands on a 21-35 or 60 macro or 100 macro? The 80/1.4 is nice, but not light and even though it is the same cell as the 75/1.4 it weighs much more than the 75.

 

M wise, try the MATE 28-35-50/4.0. Get the E49 model. They are no longer made, but nice mid zooms.

 

I've R 21-35, 100 macro, 180 APO.... and M 75/1.4, WATE 28-35-50/4.0, WATE 21-35/4.0.....

 

Since my M240 is still in the component warehouse of Leica (I guess), Would you kindly share your insight about the outcomes using those lenses on M240 if compared with that out of analog M?

 

Thanks a lot.

 

Thomas Chen

[vikasmg]

Sorry to hear that is too much for you. I love that 28-90 lens, but I mostly use it on tripod, but whenever the situation warrants I use it hand held.

 

Can you get your hands on a 21-35 or 60 macro or 100 macro? The 80/1.4 is nice, but not light and even though it is the same cell as the 75/1.4 it weighs much more than the 75.

 

M wise, try the MATE 28-35-50/4.0. Get the E49 model. They are no longer made, but nice mid zooms.

 

I've been taking a closer look at the R 28-90 pictures and I have to say I do like them a lot. There is a difference to the rendition that I don't have the photographic vocabulary to express but that I like. So I will try and keep that lens. But I was really looking for something lighter that I can travel with without feeling the temptation of leaving the weight behind! the MATE is a good idea if I can locate one - that way I can take a 90mm Summarit along and have a reasonable solution.

 

- Vikas