Fast telephoto lenses on the Leica.

[Lax Jought]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Canon 100mm f2 with LTM.

LUF member MENOS demonstrated use of M8 with Canon 100 f2 covering motor racing in all light conditions - 24h Le Mans.

 

I think I found the photos on the RFF forum, they're a lot better than I expected with the M8.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Lax Jought

[CheshireCat]

But in all seriousness, an aperture of f/3.4 would not be workable for what I need to do.  The larger the aperture, the better. 

 

If a 90/2 lens is workable on a M8 at ISO 800, a 135/3.4 is more than workable on the M240 at ISO 2200.

[Lax Jought]

 

 

If a 90/2 lens is workable on a M8 at ISO 800, a 135/3.4 is more than workable on the M240 at ISO 2200.

 

Do you have an example of the M240 at ISO 2200? 

 

The M8 does not have ISO 800, I would not no above ISO 640 to be honest.  There is far too much noise at ISO 1250. 

[fiftyonepointsix]

The cheapest way for you to get a 1-stop improvement for the M8 would be to buy an extra battery and use Raw mode. Noise at ISO1250 on my camera is better than ISO640 using DNG-8. Noise at ISO2500 is not bad, a little more than the M9. I use Lightroom for the exposure correction, "Sync" pictures shot at the same underexposure.

 

LR_3ev_Exposure_Batch1 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

Barring that- and you like Monochrome... Great time to get an M Monochrom...

 

Portrait in Motion by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

ISO5000, M Monochrom, Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5 wide-open. Leica mount version, ~$350.

Edited September 10, 2015 by fiftyonepointsix

[wlaidlaw]

Zeiss used to make an 85mm f2 RF coupled ZM Sonnar in Germany that got very good reviews (Sean Reid). I assume it did not sell, as they have replaced it with a far cheaper Cosina built 85/f4 Tele Tessar. You may be able to find the f2 one second hand. It is an odd shape and some of these lenses apparently had a "wobble" problem but I don't know what wobbled. My experiences with the ZM lenses has been universally flawless. I have had the 35 and 21 Biogons and currently have the 25 Biogon and 50 Planar.

 

I have also used the Contax 85mm lens on a Novoflex LEM/CONT adapter on the M240, with very very satisfactory results. These lenses come in two flavours, the usual f1.4 (great value at around €500 for a mint lens) and the very rare f1.2 anniversary edition (megabucks and from my experience using both on Contax film cameras, not quite as good as the wonderful f1.4). The lens I use a lot on my M240 is the Zeiss Contax 28-85mm f3.3 Vario Sonnar. I cannot see any difference between images taken with this zoom lens and those taken with my various Leica primes. It is a big heavy lump, with 16 elements but has good handling with a single touch trombone type focus and zoom sleeve (see below).

 

When going for Contax lenses, it is better to buy the later MMJ Japanese built lenses rather the earlier AEG (Germany) or AEJ(Japan). There was a minor recompilation on a number of the lenses and the coating was improved on all of them. People pay more for the AEG lenses, due I assume to the mistaken belief that the German ones must somehow be better. The MMJ lenses all have their smallest aperture (f16 or f22) painted green. 

 

I have no difficulty focusing my 600mm/f6.3 Contax Tele Tessar on the M240 but only on non-moving or slow moving subjects and preferably on a tripod or at least a monopod. For moving subjects or hand held I use an auto-focus Olympus 75-300mm (150-600mm EFOV) on my Olympus Pen EP-5, which has 5 axis image stabilisation. 

 

Wilson

 

PS before anyone asks, that is a Photo-equip grip (much neater than Leica's dumb grip), where I had them paint the anodised black aluminium bits silver to match my camera, but the paint has not adhered. In due course I will rub it all off. 

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!

[fiftyonepointsix]

How are these lenses on an M240?

They should be fine- I know M240 users that have posted pictures with them. At F4, they out-resolve the M Monochrom. I have used them on the M8, M9, and M Monochrom. I have also used them on u43 mirrorless. Telephoto lenses do not have the vignetting issues that wide-angle lenses have with Digital sensors.

 

The modern Zeiss m-Mount 85/2 is about 8x the price of the Nikkors.

Edited September 10, 2015 by fiftyonepointsix

[uhoh7]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Canon 85/1.5 and 100/2 are great, but there also the relatively inexpensive 135/2.8 Leitz which is pretty good for concert work, much cheaper than either, and way way easier to find, since only 2000 85/1.5s were made and something like 3k 100/2 Canon. There are three version, all similar, but of course the later ones would be a bit more desirable. Yes it comes with the goggles They made alot of these over the years, so they can be found pretty easy, and it's heavy, so no one uses it, except me LOL I love the thing. It is far superior in low light to the 135/3.4, which I have and love, but that lens is not for low light. Some people can stand ISO at a high setting, not me, and the Sony A7 is no exception. I hate it already at ISO 800 LOL. Now, the A7S is another story.

 

image by unoh7, on Flickr

 

I think that one cost around 350 USD, or less.

 

Here on the M9, also not good high ISO, but maybe better than M8. But I could shoot this at f/4:

 

Wonder_0-094 by Charlie Webster, on Flickr

 

The lens is under-rated, and no slouch WO:

 

L1020046 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

And for fun, here is the 75 lux next to the Canon 85/1.5:

 

75 Lux and Canon 85/1.5 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

And here the 85/1.5 about 1.8 on the M9:

L1023229 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

This is a very underrated lens because at F/1.5 critical focus is not easy LOL In fact, it is a masterpiece, not far off the lux WO and real sharp as you stop down. Very heavy though. Here WO on the Sony A7r:

 

Canon LTM 85/1.5 @1.5 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

BTW the thread by menos on RFF with the 100/2 M8 at Le Mans, without press pass! It's incredible.

 

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120700

Edited September 10, 2015 by uhoh7

[John McMaster]

Zeiss used to make an 85mm f2 RF coupled ZM Sonnar in Germany that got very good reviews (Sean Reid). I assume it did not sell, as they have replaced it with a far cheaper Cosina built 85/f4 Tele Tessar. You may be able to find the f2 one second hand. It is an odd shape and some of these lenses apparently had a "wobble" problem but I don't know what wobbled.

Did not sell well as expensive, so quite rare and even more expensive now. I like it ( have 75mm Summilux and Summicron, 90mm Summicron v2 and 90mm Elmarit-M as well) but does not feel as well built as Leica lenses....

 

john

[wlaidlaw]

On the 135/2.8, when I was going to get one about 9 years ago, a conversation with Malcolm Taylor, the UK Leica lens guru, put me off. He explained that a lot of the lenses have separation problems between the lens elements. Only the earlier ones are repairable, as Leica used a UV setting super hard epoxy cement on the later ones, which in the majority of cases, cannot be disassembled without damaging the elements. Many of these lenses also have misaligned or damaged spectacles. He recommended instead, the latest 135/3.4 APO or if that was out of the budget, the 135/4 Tele-Elmar-M. I was lucky enough to find an old stock but new and unused copy of this lens at a very reasonable price of €550. MT said you can be lucky and find a really good 135/2.8 but the odds are sadly against it. The 135/4 T-E-M is a pretty sharp lens but there is a touch of CA at the outer corners at f4, which the 135/3.4 APO has cured. 

 

When there are so many good, cheap and fast manual focus SLR tele lenses around from Nikon, Leica R, Canon, Contax, Olympus, etc, which now can used perfectly well with a Leica R to M or Novoflex adapter, I nowadays, would not pay the extra for an RF coupled lens. The better and higher contrast the lens, the better focus peaking works on the M240. This is where the high contrast Leica R and Contax lenses are beneficial. For example on my 80mm/f2.8 Hartblei tilt shift lens, based on an updated old Pentacon medium format lens, focus peaking barely works at all. For anyone who thinks a cheap SLR to Leica M adapter will do fine, they should read the LensRentals.com article on the subject of lens adapters. 

 

Wilson

Edited September 10, 2015 by wlaidlaw

[uhoh7]

On the 135/2.8, when I was going to get one about 9 years ago, a conversation with Malcolm Taylor, the UK Leica lens guru, put me off. He explained that a lot of the lenses have separation problems between the lens elements. Only the earlier ones are repairable, as Leica used a UV setting super hard epoxy cement on the later ones, which in the majority of cases, cannot be disassembled without damaging the elements. Many of these lenses also have misaligned or damaged spectacles. He recommended instead, the latest 135/3.4 APO or if that was out of the budget, the 135/4 Tele-Elmar-M. I was lucky enough to find an old stock but new and unused copy of this lens at a very reasonable price of €550. MT said you can be lucky and find a really good 135/2.8 but the odds are sadly against it. The 135/4 T-E-M is a pretty sharp lens but there is a touch of CA at the outer corners at f4, which the 135/3.4 APO has cured. 

 

When there are so many good, cheap and fast manual focus SLR tele lenses around from Nikon, Leica R, Canon, Contax, Olympus, etc, which now can used perfectly well with a Leica R to M or Novoflex adapter, I nowadays, would not pay the extra for an RF coupled lens. The better and higher contrast the lens, the better focus peaking works on the M240. This is where the high contrast Leica R and Contax lenses are beneficial. For example on my 80mm/f2.8 Hartblei tilt shift lens, based on an updated old Pentacon medium format lens, focus peaking barely works at all. For anyone who thinks a cheap SLR to Leica M adapter will do fine, they should read the LensRentals.com article on the subject of lens adapters. 

 

Wilson

Wilson, he is shooting night events with an M8. F/3.4 or F/4 is not going to cut it. You are getting twice the light at f/2.8. In low light the 135/2.8 is far superior to any RF 135. For daylight use, the f/4 or the APO are better. After dark the 2.8 rules them on any M.

 

As to the copy issues: try to find a really perfect 75 lux. It can be tough. Same goes for the Canons mentioned. They can have haze issues, difficult to fix. I don't think finding a good 135/2.8 will be any more of a problem, but use paypal, check the lens carefully on reciept, and return if a CLA is called for. The 75 Lux is also a nightmare to disassemble, must be heated for days.

Edited September 10, 2015 by uhoh7

[tobey bilek]

RF cameras lose accuracy the longer the lens.   SLR gains accuracy the longer the lens.  The crossover is at 90 mm.   At least that was the opinions way back when and not much has really changed.    The problem stems from RF base length.     RF base is not long enough for fast tele.    IF THE PRISM ANGLES OF AN SLR SCREEN ARE CUT AT THE PROPER ANGLE FOR FAST TELE or you use a good mat screen such as found in a visoflex,  that will be superior.

[fiftyonepointsix]

I picked up a V2 135/2.8 Tele-Elmarit in a trade. Glass is perfect. On the M8: I use a 1.25x magnifier in addition to the goggles.

 

Wide-Open:

 

135/2.8 Tele-Elmarit on the Leica M8 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

135/2.8 Tele-Elmarit on the Leica M8 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

Spring 2015 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

Focus requires more care than the 105/2.5 Nikkor and 100/2 Canon. You need to keep your eye centered for the goggles. This is a big, heavy lens. I like it for the close-focus ability, have not tried it at the skating rink in low-light. This lens goes in the $300~$400 range for one near mint. The version I have uses 55mm filters and series VII filters. 

 

The Canon 100/2 or Nikkor 8.5cm F2 - probably the best to look at that can be found at a reasonable price. I paid $400 for the Canon and $300 for the Nikkor. The Canon- big. The Nikkor uses 48mm filters but the original shade is made to hold Series VII filters. The Canon uses 58mm filters. It is much bigger than the Nikkor.

Edited September 10, 2015 by fiftyonepointsix

[jaapv]

I rather dislike the tunnel view induced by the masking on the goggles. Reason I sold mine.

[bocaburger]

I shoot jpeg 99% on my M240's, but I shot raw 100% on my M8 and M9, mainly for color/WB issues, but also it was better at taming the noise at higher ISO's.  I could routinely squeeze 1250 out of it. 

 

Also, depending on how large you intend to print, you might be able to use a 90 Cron and crop. 

[uhoh7]

I've read all about RF base being overstretched at 135. But I shoot alot at 135, and I have 4 or 5 the M9 can shoot, so I can make up my own mind In my experience it's a matter of learning your lenses. If you read the thread about Menos shooting LeMans, he practiced with the 100/2 for weeks. I have more trouble with my 135/3.4 WO than the Elmarit, here at 2.8:

 

Snow Removal by unoh7, on Flickr

 

Yes, the googles are very strange at first with this lens, not least for framing. Shoot 100 shots in various scenarios, chimping as you go, and it's fine. Easier for me than the 100/2 WO. It's heavy so I like a grip. I pretend I have a speed graphic

 

I was going to remark the 100/2 is hard to find but:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/CLAd-Minty-Super-Rare-Canon-100mm-f2-L-Mount-LTM-L39-Leica-Screw-Mount-/141765194707?hash=item2101dd33d3

 

Here is mine on the M9 WO:

L1007478 by unoh7, 100/2 WO

 

The Canon is a wonderful lens, but I'd give the elmarit the edge WO for sharpness

 

L1019442 by unoh7, 135/2.8 WO

 

I should try this shot on the Canon at 2.8 Anyway, the Elmarit was designed exactly for what the OP wants: telephoto event photography with sometimes limited light. Given the restictions, I think Mandler did a great job with this lens, based on my own experience. Many comments on it come from people who shot it seldom. 135 at 2.8 with the RF is for those who put in the time to get good at it. Or 100/2 for that matter

 

I think WO the 75 Lux has less DOF than either.

 

On the money front: the cheapest way to do the job well on an M8 would be the Canon 85/1.9 LTM, which is often 200 or less, and is excellent.

 

DSC01608 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

The Nikkor in LTM seems a bit more, but like Brian says, it's also great with the nice hard glass and coatings:

 

Menus by unoh7, A7.mod 85/2 Nikkor RF

 

It would be even better on a M8

 

Also worthy of consideration: Canon 85/1.8 LTM Rare and the best 85 of the Canons: about 550USD.

 

Canon ltm by unoh7, on Flickr

 

L1023432 by unoh7, M9 Canon 85/1.8 WO

 

and one I don't have: Voigtlander 75/1.8: about 500USD, and a recent lens so not so hard to find a really good one.

Edited September 11, 2015 by uhoh7

[jaapv]

RF cameras lose accuracy the longer the lens.   SLR gains accuracy the longer the lens.  The crossover is at 90 mm.   At least that was the opinions way back when and not much has really changed.    The problem stems from RF base length.     RF base is not long enough for fast tele.    IF THE PRISM ANGLES OF AN SLR SCREEN ARE CUT AT THE PROPER ANGLE FOR FAST TELE or you use a good mat screen such as found in a visoflex,  that will be superior.

That is a 100% correct summary, with the caveat that the figure of 90 mm is approximate and depends on rangefinder base length, which is linked to viewfinder magnification. I also agree that it is near-impossible to focus a long tele properly using the focus aids on an SLR, as they depend on the angles chosen for the split image and/or microprisms. The way to go is indeed a matte screen.

 

Anyway, moving the the limits of usability, I find that with some self-training it is quite possible to use the 135/3.4 wide open on for instance the M9 with the confidence of getting more than 80% of your shots in focus, despite Leica's (theoretically correct ) disclaimer. 

A viewfinder magnifier will shift the theoretical crossover point to approx. 135 mm, depending on strength. That is the real reason  thatLeica builds one, not to help inadequate focusing techniques. It is also the reason that they moved from 1.25x to 1.4x, to compensate for the lower viewfinder magnification of the digital M series. And it is  most likely the main reason  that they only started to code the Apo-Telyt more or less synchronous with the introduction of the stronger magnifier.

[wlaidlaw]

I agree 100% with Jaap on the 135 on the M9 and M240. I have never had a problem with focusing my 135 T-E, getting around 90%+ in focus but with the important proviso that this is always in daylight. I used to use a magnifier with it but find I can still manage without. I have much more problem focusing my f0.95 Noctilux in low light, with the rangefinder. It has got better over the last few months since having my cataracts done and laser correction at the same time. My cataracts were very yellow (you have one eye done at a time and can compare by opening one eye and then the other) and constantly changing my prescription but not particularly cloudy. I opted for the highest quality of Bausch and Lomb single vision (not bifocal or trifocal) replacement lenses and once they settled down, they have made a big difference to my ease of using an RF. Just not wearing varifocal glasses, as I have done for 40 years makes a big difference. However, in low light, for example candle light, I still opt to use the EVF on the M240, as I find I hit perfect focus better with it than with the RF. It is not as fast but in those circumstances, more accurate. 

 

Wilson

[Lax Jought]

Some fantastic photography in this thread.  I'm resisting the urge to post some photos of my own.  I already have a vintage ~1956 90mm f/2.8 elmarit but it's sometimes still a little on the slow side for my purposes, even when attached to the capable Sony A7.

[Lax Jought]

The cheapest way for you to get a 1-stop improvement for the M8 would be to buy an extra battery and use Raw mode.

 

It really isn't the way I work though.  I've been doing a lot of music/concert/events/production/unit still photography which mostly often involve long hours (sometimes the whole working day) in poorly lit conditions.  Throughout this time I'm 100% focused and observing everything around me to document things that are happening in front of me.  So it would be difficult to leave the camera on at all times, especially when it might turn itself off just when I need it. 

 

Anyway, with the latest firmware update the Sony A7 can be switched on and ready to snap a shot within a second or less.  If somebody knows how to rewrite the firmware like the Magic Lantern guys did for the Canon DSLRs so that the M8 can switch on and go straight into raw mode, that would be awesome. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Lax Jought]

Zeiss used to make an 85mm f2 RF coupled ZM Sonnar in Germany that got very good reviews (Sean Reid). I assume it did not sell, as they have replaced it with a far cheaper Cosina built 85/f4 Tele Tessar. You may be able to find the f2 one second hand. It is an odd shape and some of these lenses apparently had a "wobble" problem but I don't know what wobbled. My experiences with the ZM lenses has been universally flawless. I have had the 35 and 21 Biogons and currently have the 25 Biogon and 50 Planar.

 

I have also used the Contax 85mm lens on a Novoflex LEM/CONT adapter on the M240, with very very satisfactory results. These lenses come in two flavours, the usual f1.4 (great value at around €500 for a mint lens) and the very rare f1.2 anniversary edition (megabucks and from my experience using both on Contax film cameras, not quite as good as the wonderful f1.4).

 

 

Hi Wilson, that f/1.2 Contax 85mm sounds perfect!  Sad to hear that the f/1.4 has better IQ but f/1.4 is no slouch either.  I'll keep an eye out for the f/1.4, IQ is important to me.

 

But more importantly, the Zeiss 85mm f/2 sounds good also.  I don't know what the wobble issue can be either.  The closest thing I can imagine is how the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.1 wobbles a bit because its screws need to be tightened regularly or they will gradually become loose and the lens will 'wobble'.