Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mike51

Quenox Extension Ring for Leica M

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Quenox Extension Ring for Leica M - replaces Leica OUFRO Leitz 16469Y.

 

Has anyone had any experience with this extension ring? Or, are there any reviews of the product you have come across?

 

The retailer is found at Fotozubeh.

 

I have no connection with the manufacturer or retailer.

 

Mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well.....I take that as a 'no' to both questions:rolleyes:.

 

Given that OUFROs are as easy to find as hen's teeth and at high cost, I decided to bite the bullet and ordered the Quenox. Some risk, I admit. But, given the cost (89.99 Euros), I'm taking a calculated gamble that it's not going to be a cheap Chinese import with a huge mark-up:eek:.

 

Once I've had chance to try it out I'll report back - that's if any of you out there are remotely interested:confused:

 

Mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, it looks exactly like the (otherwise somewhat cheaper

) OUFRO copy offered by a well-known eBay seller, which was discussed on this very forum a while ago... I did order one and, as reported by others, it works but is a very tight fit.

Look forward to reading your feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ecar. Useful to hear that. I had been following the other thread(s) on the OUFRO and alternatives. But, didn't make the link that you suggest. Fingers crossed....though I'm now anticipating an over tight fit when I try it:(

 

Mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be honest, it looks exactly like the (otherwise somewhat cheaper ) OUFRO copy offered by a well-known eBay seller, which was discussed on this very forum a while ago... I did order one and, as reported by others, it works but is a very tight fit.

Look forward to reading your feedback.

 

I've taken delivery of the Quenox version of the OUFRO. And, had prepared myself for disappointment. Indeed, I had to agree that on examination of web images it looked identical to the Jinfinance version that has been discussed. Examination in the hand didn't change that assumption.

 

However, having tried it out, I've concluded that it must be a re-engineered version. The fit to the M(240) body is good - not tight at all and no movement once rotated into position. The fit to lens is a smooth rotation ending in a click when in final position. I experienced exactly what Karl G reported (02/10/2013), namely that it has a "very slight rotational play after lens "lock" with no for and aft or vertical play". Whilst this latter feature isn't ideal, it isn't a show stopper and therefore I'll be happy to use the ring.

 

For what it's worth, when it comes to 'care' for my Leica lenses and body I have to admit to being on the fastidious end of the spectrum. Had there been the slightest bit of worrying tightness to the fit I would not have hesitated to write off the purchase. Having said that, if I had the chance to buy an original OUFRO at an acceptable price, I would do so.

 

Hope that's of some help to someone.

 

Mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While such a extension ring sure will work—somehow—with M lenses, it's not a good solution when high image quality is desired. There are many solutions for close-up photography with the M (Typ 240) that will yield better results than an M lens on an extension tube.

 

The most obvious are:

 

  • the Macro-Elmar-M 90 mm lens
  • close-up diopter lenses (preferably double-element achromatic ones) on top of M lenses
  • all kinds of dedicated macro lenses for SLR cameras, via an adapter
  • other SLR macro gear, including microphoto lenses, reversed wide-angle lenses, and enlarger lenses on extension tubes or bellows units, via an adapter

With the exception of the Macro-Elmar, an M lens on an extension ring is the worst solution technically. It only has one advantage—it's small and easy to carry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought the one from Ebay, and I received it few days ago. I was told from the seller, the inital version was a tight fit, but not anymore.

It fits fine on my camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dear fellow readers,

I'd like to try out this "Quenox Extension Ring" for my Leica M with my WATE, my Summilux 35 and Noctilux 50. I am not familiar at all with the technology behind the macro-photography - my friend has just asked me to help out with some close-up shots of her Goldsmith-work.

 

Can anybody explain in simple terms, how close I can go with my lenses - do they make sense at all? maybe show a few examples, or simply tell me, if this Quenox is capable of what I want, or if it is not…?

 

Falk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, my fellow colleagues, either my previous question was just plain stupid, or simply nobody could answer it…

So I just bought the Quenox-M-Extension Ring and shot 4 quick-n-dirty examples.

 

First one with Summilux 35 without and with Quenox. Than Noctilux without and with Quenox. Sorry for the mess on my table, I just opened the box and put the extension on my camera… it's not really a studio-test setting. Shots without Quenox are at minimum distance (0,7m for Summilux and 1m for Noctilux) focussed on the little triangle open card-box part, and all are wide-open.

 

Build quality seems ok. There is some movement in the locking/unlocking mechanism of the extension, but I guess it should be without any effect.

 

I'll try it out in the next few days…

Edited by falkk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a look for this Quenox adapter but couldn't find it, could you give us alink please?

In general macro and close up work is best done with symmetrical lens designs of 'normal' focal length at least. So on the face of it the three lenses you mention are less suitable than many because of their complex optical design to give wide apertures or wide angles of view.

A better choice would be a 50mm Elmar or perhaps a Summicron. Better still a purpose built macro lens such as the R 60mm, which would need an R to M adapter.

Three dimensional subjects such as jewellery should be less problem than flat copy as corner sharpness is less necessary.

I have used a 50mm Elmar as an enlarger lens very successfully, and that is a similar set of circumstances, but for macro work on a camera I have always used a 'proper' macro lens (actually a micro Nikkor usually)

 

Gerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gerry, thanks for pointing out the Lens-Design issues. Yes, my results are a bit "artistic" when it comes to corner sharpness and such. But I think the Extension Ring adds some kind of nice touch to the photos. My intention was not to get the most clear, professional pics with the Quenox, I just wanted to play with it, and I have the chance to learn more about the subject of Makro.

 

I will attach a few examples here - first few shots are with Summilux 35, and one is a bit more abstract, shot with WATE - but I like the effect. These pice here are done for my friend the goldsmith. I think the results are absolutely fine for the purpose. We want to put them onto her website. I like the softness and the Bokeh. Sharpness in the focus areas are absolutely fine.

 

Here is the Link, where I found the extension:

Quenox Extension Ring for Leica M - replaces Leica OUFRO Leitz 16469Y buy from Enjoyyourcamera.com online shop

 

I first saw it on "enjoyyourcamera.com" than I was forwarded to Amazon. There I had some gift-card-reduction, so it was about 50 Euro.

 

Now, I slowly learn how to use it, and I completely get your point. The Quenox is a nice tool, but it has its limitations. I will try out some of the other choices, such as real makro lenses.

 

Falk

Edited by falkk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here some more with Quenox und WATE:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and a 100% crop of one of the pictures above - as you can see, I still need to edit the photo in Photoshop, clean the edge and the dirt. In this detail, you can see every flaw. WATE:

Edited by falkk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...