lct Posted July 13, 2015 Share #41  Posted July 13, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) For those interested:  - M240: 139 x 80 x 42mm - 680 g - M240 + Thumbs Up: 139 x 80 x 54mm - 730 g - D750: 141 x 113 x 78mm - 750 g  Never tried the Thumbie but it should be even lighter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 Hi lct, 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!
Orient XI Posted July 13, 2015 Share #42  Posted July 13, 2015 I seriously damaged my M8 by equipping it with a Visoflex III and the f/5 400mm Telyt (weight 2.05kg) and screwing a monopod into the camera's bush. However, I regularly use the f/5.6 560mm Telyt (weight 2.30kg)+ Televit + Visoflex III. Packed in a rucksack I find it quite possible to walk 10km on a photo safari around the Lee Valley Park even though I'll be 75 in three days time. I use a monopod — usually collapsed — even with the 560mm monster. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 13, 2015 Share #43  Posted July 13, 2015 i have no experience with the Telyt 400/5 but it has a tripod collar doesn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a911s Posted July 13, 2015 Share #44  Posted July 13, 2015 And the Visoflex … ?  Pete. Leica replaced that with the Leicaflex SLR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted July 13, 2015 Share #45 Â Posted July 13, 2015 Leica replaced that with the Leicaflex SLR. Well not really in my view since a) there are plenty of us still using a Visoflex with an M, the Leicaflex didn't accommodate the Visoflex lenses, c) the Leicaflex was a new, stand-alone system with its own series of lenses, d) the Leicaflex didn't accommodate any of the M series lenses. Â I would agree however that it provided a mirror box, longer register, and through-the-lens viewing to permit the use of telephoto, zoom, and macro lenses. Â Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 13, 2015 Share #46 Â Posted July 13, 2015 What is more, the Leicaflex was introduced in 1964, and the Visoflex was produced up till 1984, with some lenses available into the nineties. That can hardly be called a succession.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orient XI Posted July 13, 2015 Share #47 Â Posted July 13, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) i have no experience with the Telyt 400/5 but it has a tripod collar doesn't it?It has a double tripod socket in its big foot. Better balance is achieved by choosing one of these sockets to fit the tripod or monopod than by using the sockets on OUBIO/16466 adaptor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a911s Posted July 13, 2015 Share #48  Posted July 13, 2015  I would agree however that it provided a mirror box, longer register, and through-the-lens viewing to permit the use of telephoto, zoom, and macro lenses.  Pete.  Agreed. The number of photographers who used the Leica SLRs (Leicaflex and Leica R series) far outweighed those who used the Visoflex after 1964. It was more like a god send than a succession. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 13, 2015 Share #49 Â Posted July 13, 2015 Well, having used both, I think the Visoflex was superior in some respects. I agree an SLR was considerably more practical, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Lowe Posted July 14, 2015 Share #50 Â Posted July 14, 2015 I regularly carry the Nokton 35 1.2 II mounted on an M240. Even with a good cross-body strap I find I can get a stiff back from having that lump of weight hanging off my side. Â But I put up with it because I really like the output. Â Â Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kivis Posted August 1, 2015 Share #51  Posted August 1, 2015 400 grams or less, anything more and I might as well use another system / format since I find the hand holdable speeds suffer greatly due to sub-par ergonomics. Agree but at a Weight 428 grams, the CV Nokton 50/1.1 is about as heavy as I can handle. The lens does fit well in my hand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Pope Posted August 1, 2015 Share #52  Posted August 1, 2015 Agree but at a Weight 428 grams, the CV Nokton 50/1.1 is about as heavy as I can handle. The lens does fit well in my hand.  Same for me.  When I had my M6TTLs and M2 I used to have a 135mm Elmarit.  It was a terrific lens, but the size and weight meant that it hardly got used at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susie Posted August 4, 2015 Share #53  Posted August 4, 2015 The heavest Leica non-visoflex I have used on an M camera is the 8,5cm f/1.5 Summarex, which is about 800g. I am not worried about it on an M but think it is a bit heafty on a 111f. Of course on earlier cameras with a built-up body, the strain would be more than on a diecast body.  Susie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted August 5, 2015 Share #54  Posted August 5, 2015 The heavest Leica non-visoflex I have used on an M camera is the 8,5cm f/1.5 Summarex, which is about 800g. I am not worried about it on an M....  Susie ...me too, but prefer anyway to support it keeping the barrel in my hand (add that, with the Summarex, it's a pleasure in itself...  ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted August 5, 2015 Share #55 Â Posted August 5, 2015 I will happily carry my F1 noctilux or 75mm Summilux but do prefer lenses around the 50 Summicron/Simmilux E46 Pre Asph, 21/24 Elmarit size. Anything around the size of the older 35mm summicrons or summaron are lovelier still. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.