Fast telephoto lenses on the Leica.

[david strachan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Menos....best bang for the buck:

- both in terms of speed and reach + a still respectable optical performance: 100/2 Canon LTM (there is no other rangefinder coupled lens you can get for this kind of money to be fully functional on a Leica M rangefinder camera (be prepared: you very likely have to get it fine calibrated for best performance)

The Canon 135mm f 3.5 ltm is a cracker too.  Very nice build, accurate and good opticals. Great on the M8 giving 180mm equivalence.

 cheers Dave S

[menos I M6]

Hi menos, thanks for dropping by!  Good to hear from a fellow M8 user, especially with your car racing photos.

 

I have my eye on the Canon 100m f/2 which should come to about 130mm on the M8.  I think I have decided that any photographic situation that the M8 can't handle at 130mm f/2, I will buy a Sony A7sII to help me with the extreme circumstances. 

 

My plan is to buy an M240 or M9 next year as my main camera, with the M8 as a backup or as a 2nd camera with another lens on it. The reason I was thinking telephoto is because for a rangefinder with limited telephoto options, the M8 is the only one that can extend the length due to its crop sensor.  But of course unfortunately its ISO isn't that great for use in low light.

 

I do have a Canon 7D which I use as a backup camera but I don't really enjoy using it, although I am forced to use it especially where I need its silent shutter function at a quiet music concert or stage play, or on a film set for example.

 

I really prefer the rangefinders because I manually focus much faster and more accurately than an autofocus on a DSLR especially in low light situations.  The 7D is no slouch and in good lighting conditions it works well.  A lot of my photography occurs in difficult light though, and that's where the 7D suffers with its autofocus, it has even greater difficulty if the subject of the photo is moving or if there's flashing lights on a stage.  In that kind of situation, I am forced to switch to live-view and manually focus using the little screen.

 

There are other aesthetic reasons why I like the rangefinder, I have found that they are not as intimidating for people than if I was to point a big black DSLR at them.  This is particularly true for non-photographers who have no idea what the Leica is, they see an 'old' camera and think it's 'cute', it's not a camera that is not usually associated with paparazzis.

If I were you, I would completely get that Sony cam out of your head and use the Canon 7D you have for long lens stuff. Canon (as Nikon) does some truly amazing stuff with telephoto lenses. Canon is unfortunately only at the disadvantage that unlike Nikon you cannot save a few thousand Dollars by just buying an 1980's manual focus version of one of todays high performance telephoto lenses - you have to shell out cash for AF lenses that work on their DSLRs :-(

 

The 7D will eclipse anything you might be able to do with vintage long glass on the M8 with the possibly only exception being a 135/3.4 APO-Telyt (which costs big now that people have found out that the whole telephoto lenses don't work on a M is a FUD).

 

If you insist on a fast long lens on the M8, some quick tips:

- M8 lacks 135mm frame lines, so 135mm lenses are a little more inconvenient (but perfectly fine otherwise) to use

- 90mm lenses work fantastic, longer lenses (and ANY fast rangefinder telephotos) need very precise calibration (as does your M8) in order to work well

 

I do my own lens and camera calibration since starting that fast glass and vintage glass addiction some years ago and have had to adjust a lot of the fast lenses I received in order to work well with modern high res digital M bodies.

 

Menos, you are a dangerous influence

 

I had a weak moment today and bought this beast for my A7.mod:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/281799278883?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

 

It has the wrong nameplate LOL, but seems pretty clean, and the price was decent. 300/2.8 ED AI-S IF, oh yeah!

 

Research suggests it's near the same league as the 180, we'll see

 

You can tell these were real front line lenses, many copies with all sorts of battle wounds. A real clean one is still worth over a grand. Mine looks rough enough, I won't be inclined to baby it

Haha - I apologize, but apart from that: GREAT DEAL !!!

The 300/2.8 (together with the 180/2.8 and later 70-200/2.8) always have been Nikons workhorse lenses for pro users. Nikon was in the race to be the best at what they did with these lenses with the other high end manufacturers since these lenses started to appear on the market.

Whatever version of a Nikkor 300/2.8 you end up with will be a great piece of glass.

I use a 300/2.8 VRI for motor sports for a few years (but really need a 400/2.8 which I am oogling for a while now.

I urge you to make your next purchase a nice, mechanically sound (good light seals) Nikon F3 and shoot that beast as it was designed to be used ;-) 

 

 

I did not read all the thread sorry but don't forget that the M8 is a crop camera so its focus accuracy is limited with fast tele lenses. Don't expect high hit rates at full aperture with 135/3.4, 90/2 or 75/1.4 lenses if you don't use a magnifier. My own limits w/o magnifier or goggles are 135/5.6, 90/2.8 and 75/2. FWIW.

 

This I have to state is nonsense and persisted for years throughout internet wisdom.

The Leica M8 is as precise, focussing these lenses as is the M9 and any derivatives of it, it is more precise as any film body before (and after it) and it is less precise than the M10 and it's derivatives.

 

Now here is the key:

ANY rangefinder camera needs extremely precise calibration (and the lenses to be used with it) in order to provide good focussing performance.

Additionally the user must train focussing such fast lenses regularly and must be in good, fit condition in order to get the best results when using these lenses wide open.

For a long time a Noctilux f1 was my mainly used lens on my M8.2, I also used extensively very fast telephoto lenses as 75/1.4, 85/1.5, 100/2, 135/3.4 on the M8.2 and later digitals.

They work perfectly fine when properly calibrated.

 

Fun fact: rangefinder calibration on M cameras does need regular maintenance. With a well serviced body this is nowhere near as often as the internet will make us believe.

I re-calibrate my bodies usually about once a year but do test for mis-focussing lenses and bodies before any important use of the gear.

Some of my cameras I do carry with me every day in a backpack or messenger bag on a Mountainbike, in a car, on the train, on the airplane, … these bags get bumped, thrown and knocked, yet the gear works perfectly fine.

Leica M cameras are robust cameras when treated properly.

 

 

Menos....best bang for the buck:

- both in terms of speed and reach + a still respectable optical performance: 100/2 Canon LTM (there is no other rangefinder coupled lens you can get for this kind of money to be fully functional on a Leica M rangefinder camera (be prepared: you very likely have to get it fine calibrated for best performance)

The Canon 135mm f 3.5 ltm is a cracker too.  Very nice build, accurate and good opticals. Great on the M8 giving 180mm equivalence.

 cheers Dave S

 

Dave, along with the exotic fast glass I have been addicted to I have a few of the classic 135mm lenses from Nikon, Canon, Leica, and a few small Japanese companies.

 

What I find with most of these vintage lenses is that many of them are truly fantastic lenses (even by modern terms), once you stop them down to ~f5.6 but most of these will suffer from optical issues in sync with the technology of the time they appeared when used wide open.

My point - I don't consider them fast.

 

There are three exceptions to this:

Leica 135/2.8 goggle (potential issues with separation and almost always a calibration is needed)

135/2.8 (non goggled) Japanese lens (I just now forgot the name and can't find the lens at the moment - I have both the 135/2.8 and the exotic 180/6.3 ? rangefinder coupled version - both are not high performance lenses compared to other glass in that range, they are rather exotic birds)

135/3.4 APO-Telyt

 

I consider the APO Telyt the only true fast 135 mm rangefinder lens, as it is truly high performing already at its widest aperture, eclipsing any of the RF lenses that came before it. It does come at a price though one must stop a minute and reflect if a DSLR with telephoto lens (at similar or less cost) is not a better solution.

I love my APO - it's the greatest telephoto lens on the Leica M and has for a long time been treated very step fatherly by it's creators (even to the point that Leica omitted the 135mm frame lines in the M8 entirely!).

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[uhoh7]

APO Telyt:

 

Boulder Knob by unoh7, on Flickr

 

White Respite by unoh7, on Flickr

 

knurls by unoh7, on Flickr

 

But for me it's not so good after dusk. Mandler's 135/2.8 is to my taste, WO, especially when the edges are not so critical.

 

I priced that 300/2.8 Nikon in 1984. Similar year to my 75 Lux. 1450usd or today 3700ish for the big Nikon and only 689 for the 75/1.4 or about 1600 in 2015 $; Dollar was really high in 84.

Edited September 22, 2015 by uhoh7

[Lax Jought]

 

I did not read all the thread sorry but don't forget that the M8 is a crop camera so its focus accuracy is limited with fast tele lenses. Don't expect high hit rates at full aperture with 135/3.4, 90/2 or 75/1.4 lenses if you don't use a magnifier. My own limits w/o magnifier or goggles are 135/5.6, 90/2.8 and 75/2. FWIW.

 

 

I have an 90mm elmarit f/2.8, I don't have a problem with pinpoint accuracy wide open.  I don't use a magnifier.  Granted, I've never tried a lens longer than 90mm on the Leica.

 

 

If I were you, I would completely get that Sony cam out of your head and use the Canon 7D you have for long lens stuff.

 

The 7D will eclipse anything you might be able to do with vintage long glass on the M8

 

That has not been my experience.  I have owned the 7D a whole year longer than the M8.2, and several years more than the A7, so I have had a bit more experience with it than my other cameras.  The ISO on the 7D is weak when compared with the A7, and the 7D has great difficulty autofocusing in low light conditions.

 

Yes it will eclipse anything I do with telephoto in terms of range but that is only when lighting conditions are good.  In the difficult lighting circumstances I work in, I've found it far, far easier with the Leica and the A7 (each for different reasons).

[david strachan]

HI Menos

Yes, no 135 framelines, but the viewfinder patch plus some works.  Like you I have little problem focusing my M8. It must be a good match  because the Canon 135 f3.5 is super sharp at f 4.

All the best Dave S

[lct]

The Leica M8 is as precise, focussing these lenses as is the M9 and any derivatives of it.

 

Sorry Menos but it is not and cannot be. Just a matter of critical base length of the rangefinder which depends, besides other factors, on the size of the film or sensor. For a given mechanical base length, the smaller the sensor the longer the critical base length and the lower the hit rates with the same lens at the same aperture if one does not use a magnifier.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have an 90mm elmarit f/2.8, I don't have a problem with pinpoint accuracy wide open.  I don't use a magnifier.  [...]

 

Same for me but it is my limit as i said above. Try to do the same with a 90/2 and you'll see what i mean.

[250swb]

An interesting thread that got me thinking. So I've just been out to the garden with my Monochrom (set for Live View and focus peaking) and tripod and confirmed what I vaguely thought to be the case. There are two very cheap lenses that perform better than the nearest Leica equivalent, but with the downside of a bit more weight.

 

The first is the Nikkor 100mm AI f/2.5 that is both sharper than my 90mm Elmarit M at like for like apertures, but amazingly has a smoother bokeh as well. I think it cost me £100. And my 135mm Nikkor Q AI f/2.8 at like for like apertures is sharper than my 135mm Tele-Elmar and again it has a smoother bokeh. I think that one cost me £67. This is a big beast though, and while the 100mm Nikkor isn't a whole lot heavier than the Elmarit the Nikkor Q needs some dedication to carry it on a day out, although it isn't exactly a large lens in the scheme of things. I would add that I can't test for colour fidelity as I don't have a colour M, but when I did the 135mm Nikkor was definitely on the cool side, and this may also be the case for the 100mm. I feel it is heresy to say there may be a better lens than the Elmarit M, it's such a pleasant lens to use, and I'd still use it on most occasions before a Nikkor because of the focus direction and not needing an adapter, but for £100 the Nikkor is a bargain.

 

 

Steve

[menos I M6]

HI Menos

Yes, no 135 framelines, but the viewfinder patch plus some works.  Like you I have little problem focusing my M8. It must be a good match  because the Canon 135 f3.5 is super sharp at f 4.

All the best Dave S

Yes, the patch helps a lot to estimate framing. When I used longer lenses with the M8.2 back then, the focal length often was not even enough and I still needed to crop slightly most of the time (using a 135mm).

 

One of the largest prints I sold so far has been a motorsports print I produced at almost 2m wide.

Now the customer wanted to have specific theme to the large print he wanted for his office and he picked a photograph from a large collection I offered him.

I tried to assist him to a choice that would be better suited for large printing like the shots I did with my Nikon gear or with the Leica S2 and 300mm lens but he made his choice.

 

It was a shot I produced with the old Leica M8.2 and … holding breath … the Canon 100/2 LTM ;-)

The shot came out great (after a huge amount of work having to upsize and clean the file for large printing) - and of course the shot was pin sharp without all that base length internet rhetoric and arm chair science of sensor layout and optical engineering doubts …

 

Sorry Menos but it is not and cannot be. Just a matter of critical base length of the rangefinder which depends, besides other factors, on the size of the film or sensor. For a given mechanical base length, the smaller the sensor the longer the critical base length and the lower the hit rates with the same lens at the same aperture if one does not use a magnifier.

The M8 sensor is pixel by pixel identical to the M9 based full frame sensors, hence focussing performance between the two sensor sizes is identical when observed on the pixel level.

This was very relevant for me, using the M8.2 as my motor sports camera for some time.

It was in fact better suited then the later M9, as due to it's lack of a very thick IR filter it would generate a higher acuity.

 

The rangefinder assembly between the M8 and M9 based cameras are for all intends identical.

 

I do not know this just by internet rumor, but due to the fact that I used these cameras extensively, printed photographs from them, using the same lenses and even maintain camera bodies and calibrate lenses myself.

 

I specialized for some time in very fast lenses and lenses as the 50/1, 50/0.95 Canon, 85/1.5, 135/3.4 were my daily users on M8.2, M9 and MM.

This is not something made up of hot air or something I read on the internet ;-)

 

This is a topic which is highly debated. I also feel that it is a very personal topic with some people I know who have similarly little issues with using such lenses on rangefinder cameras and others who just never get the focussing right once opening the aperture up.

It is not something entirely based on scientific formulae and hearsay, a large portion about it is the user itself (and not to forget the calibration of bodies and lenses, I always stress).

 

Here is some shots with my long time favorite 50 - the Noctilux f1 (it was for almost the entire time I used the M8.2 my only 50mm on that camera, as I just loved this field of view with the M8.2):

https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=52593619%40N02&view_all=1&text=Noctilux

 

a few with fast 85mm lenses:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=52593619%40N02&view_all=1&text=85

 

and some 135mm lenses:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=52593619%40N02&view_all=1&text=135

 

I love my vintage tele lenses ;-)

 

LTM fun by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

[menos I M6]

An interesting thread that got me thinking. So I've just been out to the garden with my Monochrom (set for Live View and focus peaking) and tripod and confirmed what I vaguely thought to be the case. There are two very cheap lenses that perform better than the nearest Leica equivalent, but with the downside of a bit more weight.

 

The first is the Nikkor 100mm AI f/2.5 that is both sharper than my 90mm Elmarit M at like for like apertures, but amazingly has a smoother bokeh as well. I think it cost me £100. And my 135mm Nikkor Q AI f/2.8 at like for like apertures is sharper than my 135mm Tele-Elmar and again it has a smoother bokeh. I think that one cost me £67. This is a big beast though, and while the 100mm Nikkor isn't a whole lot heavier than the Elmarit the Nikkor Q needs some dedication to carry it on a day out, although it isn't exactly a large lens in the scheme of things. I would add that I can't test for colour fidelity as I don't have a colour M, but when I did the 135mm Nikkor was definitely on the cool side, and this may also be the case for the 100mm. I feel it is heresy to say there may be a better lens than the Elmarit M, it's such a pleasant lens to use, and I'd still use it on most occasions before a Nikkor because of the focus direction and not needing an adapter, but for £100 the Nikkor is a bargain.

 

 

Steve

Hey Steve and even the rangefinder coupled Nikkor 105/2.5 LTM is still a bargain and yet such a great performer ;-)

Everyone who likes longer rangefinder glass should at least have tried one of these.

It is actually the lens that kicked of the 105mm line of lenses Nikon became so famous for.

 

The vintage 105/2.5 LTM (as many of the contemporary Nikkor RF lenses) is a heavy beast though, with a substantial amount of heavy, chrome plated brass.

One needs to love their tele lenses to carry this one the whole day in the bag.

 

This is one of the reasons why I love that Canon 100/2 LTM so much (with it's very modern all aluminum barrel design).

[fiftyonepointsix]

Hey Steve and even the rangefinder coupled Nikkor 105/2.5 LTM is still a bargain and yet such a great performer ;-)

Everyone who likes longer rangefinder glass should at least have tried one of these.

It is actually the lens that kicked of the 105mm line of lenses Nikon became so famous for.

 

The vintage 105/2.5 LTM (as many of the contemporary Nikkor RF lenses) is a heavy beast though, with a substantial amount of heavy, chrome plated brass.

One needs to love their tele lenses to carry this one the whole day in the bag.

 

This is one of the reasons why I love that Canon 100/2 LTM so much (with it's very modern all aluminum barrel design).

nikkor_105_1 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

The Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5 was introduced in Black, you are thinking of the Nikkor 8.5cm F2 chrome-over-brass.

 

The 10.5cm F2.5 uses 52mm filters, no more difficult to carry than the Canon 100/2. I have both, and the 8.5cm f2 Nikkor.

 

I use a 1.25x magnifier with the 10.5cm F2.5 and Canon 100/2.

 

Use the 90mm framelines with the M8, M9, and M Monochrom: will give 100% framing with the 105mm focal length.

[fiftyonepointsix]

nikkor_85s by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

The chrome-over-brass 8.5cm F2 Nikkors. Nikon did release a black-paint, lighter version of the 8.5cm F2- but it is uncommon.

[uhoh7]

They made a buzzilion of those Nikkor 85s but, they still fetch a price on the Bay, even in the nikon or contax mounts. I have one in contax, but someday would love it LTM.

 

Equally frustrating is finding a J-9 in LTM with good coupling.

[fiftyonepointsix]

Williamsburg by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

 

 

My Jupiter-9. Black barrel with 1950s glass replacing the 1980s glass. Secondary shim taken out to move rear triplet in, shortens focal length and has same effect as increasing main shim. Main shim REDUCED somewhat to compensate. It does a decent job wide-open from 1.5m to 20m. Use F4 after that. The CZJ 8.5cm F2 SONNAR: I took a Contax to M-Mount adapter and Indexed the Cam to correct focus across all distances. I used layers of copper tape for the fine tuning.

 

Pain in the BUTT!

 

On the M8 of course.

Edited September 22, 2015 by fiftyonepointsix

[jdlaing]

So that's what blown highlights looks like.

[menos I M6]

nikkor_105_1 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

The Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5 was introduced in Black, you are thinking of the Nikkor 8.5cm F2 chrome-over-brass.

 

The 10.5cm F2.5 uses 52mm filters, no more difficult to carry than the Canon 100/2. I have both, and the 8.5cm f2 Nikkor.

 

I use a 1.25x magnifier with the 10.5cm F2.5 and Canon 100/2.

 

Use the 90mm framelines with the M8, M9, and M Monochrom: will give 100% framing with the 105mm focal length.

Absolutely, you are right Brian, I apologize for my confusion.

I was hunting one of the 85/2 Sonnar Nikkors for a very long time.

I had a silver chrome 85/2 LTM Nikkor for a very short time, heard about the mysterious black version of that lens which I had to had at all costs but apart from scraping at hair's with for two times in actually getting one :-(

 

 

During that period at some point did I hear that Nikon indeed made a very small number of it's very rare 8.5cm f1.5 lens in Leica mount (reportedly only around ~380 samples have ever been made).

Well I was feeling the luckiest man on earth when I finally had the dream 85mm Nikkor (it is one of the very few lenses I will never ever let go, a true treasure.

The only 85mm I am still actively hunting is a genuine LTM 85/2 Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar.

 

These are in my opinion the most beautifully rendering short telephoto lenses (The Nikkor is very special but it is slightly different from the earlier Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar).

 

nikkor_85s by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

The chrome-over-brass 8.5cm F2 Nikkors. Nikon did release a black-paint, lighter version of the 8.5cm F2- but it is uncommon.

You might possibly be the one person on the planet who has touched more Sonnar lenses than anyone else ;-)

 

They made a buzzilion of those Nikkor 85s but, they still fetch a price on the Bay, even in the nikon or contax mounts. I have one in contax, but someday would love it LTM.

 

Equally frustrating is finding a J-9 in LTM with good coupling.

The LTM Nikkor 85/2 is an absolute secret tip.

Strangely everyone is hunting the 75 Summilux and 90 Summicron lenses but what a simple Nikkor 85/2 LTM can do is just amazing for the very, very underrated price one still can find these.

 

The crazy thing is that at ~2.8 and smaller it does look almost identical than the 85/1.5 (but at much less weight, a little less size and much less cost).

 

 

Here is one of my favorite combos - the M8.2 shows that I used it daily for some time, I rarely use it now but out of sentimentality just can't bring myself to sell it.

black beauty by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

[fiftyonepointsix]

1937 CZJ 8.5cm F2 Sonnar by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

1937 CZJ 8.5cm F2 Sonnar by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

Rendering on the pre-war Carl Zeiss Jena 8.5cm F2 is gorgeous. It is 7 elements in 3 groups, same as the 5cm F1.5- just bigger.

 

The 8.5cm F2 Nikkor is 5 elements in 3 groups, "elements merged" using different glass.

 

I "indexed the Cam" on the Contax to M-Mount adapter to use the Contax mount pre-war lens. Works wide-open from close-up to infinity.

 

The Nikkor 8.5cm F1.5 is 7 elements in 3 groups, same block diagram as the pre-war 8.5cm F2 Sonnar. The Post-War 8.5cm F2 Zeiss Opton moved to the 5/3 formula.

 

As far as blown highlights, another advantage of shooting Raw with the M8 and using M8RAW2DNG. The sensor of the M8 has higher dynamic range than the M9. DNG-8 throws  away shadow detail. With RAW mode you can underexpose and push up to 5 stops in Post processing. Use a curve, retain the highlights. The amount of detail that can be pulled from the shadows is amazing.

Edited September 23, 2015 by fiftyonepointsix

[farnz]

… The only 85mm I am still actively hunting is a genuine LTM 85/2 Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar. ...

Dirk,

 

If you make it over to the UK anytime, you're welcome to borrow mine.

 

Pete.

 

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!

M9P with CZJ 85/2 Sonnar in LTM

Edited September 23, 2015 by farnz

[menos I M6]

1937 CZJ 8.5cm F2 Sonnar by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

1937 CZJ 8.5cm F2 Sonnar by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

Rendering on the pre-war Carl Zeiss Jena 8.5cm F2 is gorgeous. It is 7 elements in 3 groups, same as the 5cm F1.5- just bigger.

 

The 8.5cm F2 Nikkor is 5 elements in 3 groups, "elements merged" using different glass.

 

I "indexed the Cam" on the Contax to M-Mount adapter to use the Contax mount pre-war lens. Works wide-open from close-up to infinity.

 

The Nikkor 8.5cm F1.5 is 7 elements in 3 groups, same block diagram as the pre-war 8.5cm F2 Sonnar. The Post-War 8.5cm F2 Zeiss Opton moved to the 5/3 formula.

 

As far as blown highlights, another advantage of shooting Raw with the M8 and using M8RAW2DNG. The sensor of the M8 has higher dynamic range than the M9. DNG-8 throws  away shadow detail. With RAW mode you can underexpose and push up to 5 stops in Post processing. Use a curve, retain the highlights. The amount of detail that can be pulled from the shadows is amazing.

It was quite curious to find out that the 85/1.5 is not just a "blown up" 85/2 Nikkor, which was just so successful when they introduced that lens together with the 50mm Nikkor rangefinder lenses.

For the 85/1.5 a different design was needed indeed to make it a high performance lens  (it is indeed optically the best of the contemporary 85mm super speed lenses with Leitz, Canon and Nikon offering one of those in Leica mount back then.

It has a lot of similarities in rendering with the 85/2 CZJ (I have a curious sample, which left Russia from the factory within a special Jupiter mount, calibrated from the factory for use on a Leica LTM body).

The major differences are that the Nikkor is a lot more contrasty at same apertures and does have a different color (and of course 1 stop more light).

 

A genuine, complete 85/2 CZJ LTM though I am still looking for … someday …

Dirk,

 

If you make it over to the UK anytime, you're welcome to borrow mine.

 

Pete.

 

Three Shadows.jpg

M9P with CZJ 85/2 Sonnar in LTM

I will take you up on that Pete ;-)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[menos I M6]

A few old shots from the 8.5cm f1.5 Nikkor:

 

portrait - JC - desk by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

portrait - JC - table - color by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

Shanghai | wet market - old man by teknopunk.com, on Flickr