Winedemonium Posted July 4, 2015 Share #1  Posted July 4, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) The M of course allows for adaptors through the EVF or Liveview. That allows for lenses heavier than Leica's big-weight M lenses such as the 580g 21mm Summilux, 560g 75mm Summilux, etc.  As has been discussed on other threads, including recently, Lloyd Chambers points to using a special lens support when your M is on a tripod with a heavy lens (his example, the 920g Zeiss 2/135 APO-Sonnar ZF.2.  I'm curious to know, amongst M users who use their Leica R, Zeiss, Nikkor, and other lenses on their M, how do you set this up?  Have you suffered any problems with your M mount as a result?  Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 Hi Winedemonium, Take a look here What's the heaviest lens you'd put on your M?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
John McMaster Posted July 4, 2015 Share #2 Â Posted July 4, 2015 Heavy R lenses tend to come with tripod mounts, I have used my M with 70-180/2.8, 280/4 and the APO-Telyt Modular from 400mm to 800mm with no issue ;-) Â john Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 4, 2015 Share #3  Posted July 4, 2015 +1 and the Leica R-Adapter M comes with a tripod mount as well.  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/247296-whats-the-heaviest-lens-youd-put-on-your-m/?do=findComment&comment=2847385'>More sharing options...
jaques Posted July 4, 2015 Share #4 Â Posted July 4, 2015 how about heaviest lens without a tripod mount then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted July 4, 2015 Share #5 Â Posted July 4, 2015 The MATE. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 4, 2015 Share #6 Â Posted July 4, 2015 how about heaviest lens without a tripod mount then? Â The Apo-Elmarit-R 180/2.8 perhaps (970 g). I have no experience with it but i use the Apo-Telyt-R 180/3.4 (750 g) with no problem at all on the M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted July 4, 2015 Share #7 Â Posted July 4, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Both 75 mm lenses and 135 2.8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted July 4, 2015 Share #8 Â Posted July 4, 2015 The 820 grams Canon 17mm TS-E. It has no tripod mount. Works great optically, but awkward to use with the lack of aperture control and the size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer Posted July 4, 2015 Share #9 Â Posted July 4, 2015 IMO the Noctilux f/0.95 (700gms) is as heavy as I would ever want to go hand held and even then I wouldn't want to walk around with it for more than a couple of hours at most. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AB007 Posted July 4, 2015 Share #10 Â Posted July 4, 2015 I tried using the 280/4 APO on the M but didn't like it. I have not been using it so I sold it. It was the heaviest lens I have used on the M. The 100/2.8 APO, 180/2.8 APO and 80/1.4 are ok to use. For digital bodies, I prefer using the R lenses on the A7R. Among the M lenses, 50/0.95 is the heaviest "I have used". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 4, 2015 Share #11  Posted July 4, 2015 [...] Among the M lenses, 50/0.95 is the heaviest.  The Elmarit-M 135/2.8 is slightly heavier (735 vs 700 g) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AB007 Posted July 4, 2015 Share #12  Posted July 4, 2015 The Elmarit-M 135/2.8 is slightly heavier (735 vs 700 g)  Thanks. I have never used an Elmarit 135/2.8 M. Sorry, I should have stated "heaviest M lenses I have used on the M" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted July 4, 2015 Share #13  Posted July 4, 2015 I have the Novoflex LEM-LER mounted exclusively to my 400/6.8 Telyt-V, as the adapter vignettes FAR less than the current-issue Leica adapter, and although the LEM-LER has no tripod foot, the lens itself does.  I also have the Leica adapter with the tripod foot, and the heaviest lenses I've used it with are 70-210/4-R and 180/2.8 Nikkor from the F-era.  In all cases though I MUCH prefer to adapt those lenses to my Canon 5D. Not due to weight, it's that EVF's in general quash my creative sight, and the between-shot lag in the M240 makes it suitable mostly for stationary or slow-moving subjects.  Without the adapter, the heaviest lens I own and have used is a 105/2.5 Nikkor in LTM with M-bayonet adapter. Second heaviest I own is the 90/2 pre-ASPH. To me large, heavy lenses are antithetical to my reason behind using an M, not necessarily inimical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 4, 2015 Share #14  Posted July 4, 2015 Vario-Elmar R 105-280 with Novoflex adapter and 1.4x extender, well over 2 Kg, always handheld./beanbag/shoulder stock. Without lens tripod mount(which is used to mount a Sunstrap) No problems whatever with the mount after thousands of shots over nearly three years. A combination I love to use, but I admit it takes some experience and training to use such a rig successfully, however, within the muscular limits of the photographer, the heavier the camera/lens, the more stable the combination.You can find dozens of shots by me in the photography section. (no, no motion blur)I carry the gear in tropical heat on long hikes.Why there should be any objection with light stuff like Noctiluxes I cannot see.The mount and bodyshell have been strengthened by Leica on the 240 specifically for this type of use, but I would advise using the lens strap lugs or some other means of carrying strap, though. I don’t really trust the camera ones.To add, I have been using lenses in this weight class on earlier M cameras with Visoflex often and even then the mount was stable. I did bend the Mount on my R cameras out of true several times though. It appears to be less sturdy than the M mount.Lloyd Chambers is vastly overcautious without rational reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uhoh7 Posted July 4, 2015 Share #15 Â Posted July 4, 2015 I shot the 75 Lux pretty often on the M9, and it's no feather weight. LOL I don't think twice about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tatetate Posted July 4, 2015 Share #16 Â Posted July 4, 2015 I find nokton 35mm f/1.2 ii bit heavy on my m240! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted July 4, 2015 Share #17 Â Posted July 4, 2015 I have used the ZE APO 135/2 on tripod without a special lens support, but just for a few exposures in fear of damaging the mount. Â Without a tripod, correctly balancing the combo, it is a different story. Heaviest lens I have mounted handheld is the EF 70-200/2.8 (about 1.5 Kg == 3.3 lb). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winedemonium Posted July 5, 2015 Author Share #18  Posted July 5, 2015 Vario-Elmar R 105-280 with Novoflex adapter and 1.4x extender, well over 2 Kg, always handheld./beanbag/shoulder stock. Without lens tripod mount.No problems whatever with the mount after thousands of shots over nearly three years. A combination I love to use, but I admit it takes some experience and training to use such a rig successfully, however, within the muscular limits of the photographer, the heavier the camera/lens, the more stable the combination. You can find dozens of shots by me in the photography section. (no, no motion blur) I carry the gear in tropical heat on long hikes.  Why there should be any objection with light stuff like Noctiluxes I cannot see. The mount and bodyshell have been strengthened by Leica on the 240 specifically for this type of use, but I would advise using the lens strap lugs, though. I don’t really trust the camera ones. To add, I have been using lenses in this weight class on earlier M cameras with Visoflex often and even then the mount was stable. I did bend the Mount on my R cameras out of true several times though. It appears to be less sturdy than the M mount. Lloyd Chambers is vastly overcautious without rational reason.  Interesting. Thanks for that. Yes, they must have factored the torque to some extent when they launched the M 240 with the R adaptor.  But the idea of 1kg+ has left me feeling cautious, especially after Lloyd Chambers' post on the subject. Good to hear of your positive experience then (except the R cameras!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 5, 2015 Share #19  Posted July 5, 2015 Actually way back then it was standard practice for Leica's repair departments to check the mount alignment of every R camera that came in using a little lens-and-mirror device. The specification was that they were able to bend it back into true three times, after that the bodyshell needed renewal. The M mount did not need such a check. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spydrxx Posted July 5, 2015 Share #20 Â Posted July 5, 2015 I bought a (Canon knock-off) tripod ring for heavy lenses which don't have a built-in tripod mount. It has worked fine for a number of years. If the lens barrel is too small, I merely temporarily line the ring with a thin strip of closed cell foam, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.