wildlightphoto Posted July 26, 2013 Share #41 Posted July 26, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I find the 280/2.8 image quality excellent and I can't imagine the 280/4.0 to be much better in practice... Having compared them side-by-side I reached a different conclusion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 Hi wildlightphoto, Take a look here Novoflex adapters. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
masjah Posted July 26, 2013 Share #42 Posted July 26, 2013 An elite UK dealer has one for sale. A snip at around £6k. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted July 27, 2013 Share #43 Posted July 27, 2013 Having compared them side-by-side I reached a different conclusion. I guess it depends on how critical we want to be. I actually have been using both for the last year. I have also compared them side by side. The 280/4 is obviously better and I agree the bokeh is nicer. But, the 280/2.8 is also such a nice lens and of course it is a stop faster which often gives a sharper image in practice... and it comes with its own luggage. I know that the corner sharpness is better with the 280/4, but almost always the corners don't matter in nature photography. Here is an image from the 280/2.8. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/nature-wildlife/253390-mountain-goat.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted July 27, 2013 Share #44 Posted July 27, 2013 I guess it depends on how critical we want to be. I actually have been using both for the last year. I have also compared them side by side. The 280/4 is obviously better and I agree the bokeh is nicer. But, the 280/2.8 is also such a nice lens and of course it is a stop faster which often gives a sharper image in practice... and it comes with its own luggage. I know that the corner sharpness is better with the 280/4, but almost always the corners don't matter in nature photography. Here is an image from the 280/2.8. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/nature-wildlife/253390-mountain-goat.html The most annoying thing about the f/2.8 (IMHO) is the button that locks the tripod ring. I frequently rotate the camera between horizontal and vertical and seldom is my monopod perfectly perpendicular to the ground and having the tripod ring lock after rotating 85 degrees when I wanted 90 degrees gets old very quickly. The f/4's minimum focus distance is also closer, subjectively I prefer the f/4's bokeh, I find the f/4 easier to focus quickly and accurately and corner sharpness often matters in my photos: photographs of birds by Douglas Herr photographs of birds by Douglas Herr photographs of birds by Douglas Herr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted July 27, 2013 Share #45 Posted July 27, 2013 Ahh, those are perfect examples of three photos where corner focus doesn't matter. Hey, listen I have both lenses and your 280/4 is a swell lens and it is better in a lot of ways that the 280/2.8. But, they are both great lenses and any of those photo's could have been taken with either lens. Where they all taken with the 280/4? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted July 27, 2013 Share #46 Posted July 27, 2013 Ahh, those are perfect examples of three photos where corner focus doesn't matter. The corners are in focus and they matter to me. Hey, listen I have both lenses and your 280/4 is a swell lens and it is better in a lot of ways that the 280/2.8. But, they are both great lenses and any of those photo's could have been taken with either lens. Nope, the f/4 is more maneuverable, quicker to focus, has a closer minimum focus distance and the better tripod mount. Essential traits for these photos. Were they all taken with the 280/4? Yup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted July 27, 2013 Share #47 Posted July 27, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have just replaced my Lolli Contax to M adapter, where the female Contax bayonet's lugs had either worn or squashed. They have a crudely cut slot in the lugs, into which someone has hammered a screw driver to widen the slot, to provide the required spring tolerance for accommodating fractionally different size male bayonets. I have now bought a Novoflex. Its finish and fit are far better than the Lolli and the throat is slightly wider as well, so various lenses don't scrape off the black paint like they do on the Lolli. I do wish that Leica had not led me astray by telling me categorically in February, that no frameline other than 28/90 could access the R menu. This meant I went to great lengths to get special adapters made for me for various lenses, often not very well, when I could have just bought beautifully made Novoflex ones off the shelf. The Novoflex Contax to M adapter, which brings up 50/75, as others have said, when you add some black stripes to the white painted coding recess (or LV activation strip) on the Novoflex brings up the R menu perfectly. I suspect this white strip in a shallow recess is not meant for coding but to activate the "Lens Mounted" on the M240, when you have LV active, as if you required a 0 in the first position (white), I don't think the strip would be quite long enough. This may be because Novoflex don't want to irritate Leica by making a strip which can obviously be coded to whatever you want. I just hope Leica don't think the 50/75 bringing up the R menu is a loophole and close it off at the next FW update. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Sfeir Posted July 27, 2013 Share #48 Posted July 27, 2013 Anybody tried the Nikkor VR lens using Novoflex adapter? Will the Vibration reduction work? I suppose not since the lens is not powered. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted July 27, 2013 Share #49 Posted July 27, 2013 Anybody tried the Nikkor VR lens using Novoflex adapter? Will the Vibration reduction work? I suppose not since the lens is not powered. I think you would be very lucky to get any electronically coupled lens to work, Nikon, Canon, Sony/Minolta, Contax N, etc, etc. Luckily there are a huge number of very reasonably priced manual focus lenses available which do work perfectly with the M240. I have bought some as new Contax Carl Zeiss lenses for prices that are a fraction of what they were new in the early 2000's. As I posted above, these couple well with the Novoflex adapter. Others are using Canon FD and Nikon F lenses with success (check early Nikon lenses very carefully as they are a bit prone to fungus). The R lenses also work very well but have tended to maintain their value better and Leica STILL has not released the R adapter. Below is a pic of the M240 with a Contax Tele-Tessar 300/f4 fitted with a Mutar II 2X extender, giving a 600/f8. A little slow but it is still far better than my enormous 560/f5.6 Telyt Viso lens. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/208596-novoflex-adapters/?do=findComment&comment=2383816'>More sharing options...
algrove Posted July 27, 2013 Share #50 Posted July 27, 2013 Mike, just curious if you have the APO Elmarit 180 f/2.8 and have shot it on your M240? I realize that lens is a bit too hand-holdable for you, , but hope you have comment. I am debating a search for one, and I understand that the M240 has driven the 180 APO price up. Peter I have used this lens on the M and find it very maneuverable for me. I posted some images takan with it on the R photo section which Jaap set up many months ago. Let me know if you cannot find any APO 180/2.8 examples. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted July 27, 2013 Share #51 Posted July 27, 2013 I think you would be very lucky to get any electronically coupled lens to work, Nikon, Canon, Sony/Minolta, Contax N, etc, etc. IIRC Novoflex makes an adapter to use Nikon G lenses. 100% manual obviously but aperture control is possible with Nikon G lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted July 27, 2013 Share #52 Posted July 27, 2013 IIRC Novoflex makes an adapter to use Nikon G lenses. 100% manual obviously but aperture control is possible with Nikon G lenses. Doug, Thanks for pointing that out. I did not realise they did that. Does the manual focusing work properly? I assume it must do. BTW you would like the tripod support ring on the Contax 300 Tele Tessar. It has soft detents every 90 degrees but you can lock it in any position with the rotating locking collar. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted July 27, 2013 Share #53 Posted July 27, 2013 Please pardon my ignorance yet again, but why does it matter what frame-lines are brought up by lenses that won't match the frame-lines anyway? I keep feeling that there's an obvious answer to this, but I can't think of it! This has been partially answered, but to give the complete story, the M bodies read six bits of information from the black and white coded strip on the lens mount, and two bits of coding from the position at which the lug which engages the frame lines stops when the lens is fully seated in the camera. Those 8 bits are available to the firmware to use in selecting various corrections to apply to the .dng file during capture. The old 28-35-50/4 Tri-Elmar ASPH (or MATE) shifts the frame lug appropriately when you change its focal lengths, so it is using all 8 bits of information. The WATE (16-18-21) has a fixed lug which brings up the 28 mm frame lines, and the actual selected focal length is then entered manually to get accurate EXIF data and the proper vignetting corrections. A curious feature that was discovered in the M8 and M9 was that pushing the frame line preview lever from its 35 or 50 position to the 28 mm position (corresponding to the longest frame lug size) would change the bits passed to the firmware, so that you can override the vignetting corrections if you so desire, but only for 35 and 50 mm lenses. The reason for this was discovered in Mark Norton's disassembly pictures, which showed the mechanical linkage and two microswitches which turn lug position into the extra two bits. M8 firmware was not encrypted, so it was possible to actually read the lens codes with a text editor and a little effort, and see the specifications of both 6-bit and frame-lug codes in the relevant embedded table. I don't own a recent ME, MM or M240 (yet) without the frame preview lever, but I guess that "feature" is history. There is a table of lens 6-bit plus frame lever codes at this page of the forum, but it does not seem to be kept up. I have sent in the 21/3.4 code, and by now someone must have supplied the 50/2.0 ASPH code, but neither appears there. Nothing at present is listed with the 6-bit code 55, so the suggestion that all 8-bit extensions of 55 be recognized as Leica R lenses in an adapter seems reasonable to me. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted July 28, 2013 Share #54 Posted July 28, 2013 Scott, I did not know that. Thanks. That also explains why the WATE can't code the correct focal length, 16-18-21. It all makes sense. There are no frame lines to bring up for those focal lengths. If, Leica had used the 8th bit to determine focal length, they would have had to do it by changing the 28mm frame lines and that would have been goofy to see anything other than the 28 lines in the RF, of course. So, Leica didn't just choose to not code the WATE focal lengths, they really had no choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted July 28, 2013 Share #55 Posted July 28, 2013 Could I add my tuppence worth to the framelines story. Both Jono Slack and I had contact with Leica in February, where we requested that all framelines combined with the 55 (110111) code would allow access to the R menu apart from the stated 28/90 framelines of the Leica R adapter. We were told categorically that this was not possible as the other codes were reserved. Our idea was that as Leica was only intending to produce an R lens adapter, many of us would like to use third party adapters for lenses from Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus etc etc. These adapters often have the framelines tab totally missing, so that the framelines are left in the rest 35/135 position. Novoflex adapters generally bring up the 50/75 framelines. It fairly quickly became apparent when we had the M240 in our hands, that the information Leica had given us was totally misleading. We know for certain that a 50/75 tab combined with the 55 code will also allow access to the R menu. Another forum member has said he can all access the menu with an adapter that brings up 35/135. His adapter has a short tab. I have a third party R to M adapter which has no framelines tab and I have been unable to code it to allow access to the R menu. Now this may be due to the M240 being very fussy on accepting hand coding (it is more akin to the M8 in this aspect than the very hand-coding-friendly M9). I would be keen to hear of others experiments. Can anyone get a hand coded adapter which has no framelines tab to access the R lens menu? Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 28, 2013 Share #56 Posted July 28, 2013 Scott, I did not know that. Thanks. That also explains why the WATE can't code the correct focal length, 16-18-21. It all makes sense. There are no frame lines to bring up for those focal lengths. If, Leica had used the 8th bit to determine focal length, they would have had to do it by changing the 28mm frame lines and that would have been goofy to see anything other than the 28 lines in the RF, of course. So, Leica didn't just choose to not code the WATE focal lengths, they really had no choice.Hmmm... all other wideangles with Leica bring up the 28 mm lines. That was the reason the mount on the Zeiss 21 mm lenses had to be changed to be able to code it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted July 28, 2013 Share #57 Posted July 28, 2013 Hmmm... all other wideangles with Leica bring up the 28 mm lines. That was the reason the mount on the Zeiss 21 mm lenses had to be changed to be able to code it. Ok, and that has what to do with my post? I know you are on to something just don't know what... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted July 28, 2013 Share #58 Posted July 28, 2013 Hmmm ... all other wideangles with Leica bring up the 28 mm lines. Huh!? In fact, lenses with focal lengths shorter than 28 mm will bring up the following framelines: 24 mm: 35/135 21 mm: 28/90 (also Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21 mm Asph) 18 mm: 50/75 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.