Leica SL Image Thread ...post your examples here ....

[pipatree]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

SL + Tele-Elmar 135/4 & Apo-Extender-R 2x

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[pipatree]

SL + Tele-Elmar 135/4

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!

[helged]

From the historic buildings in Bergen. SL+75LuxM at f1.4.

 

 

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!

[ramarren]

Hi Dunk:

See attached photo below which is self-explanatory.

Cheers!

Felix

 

 

Now that's an amusing way to obtain a light, 270mm f/8 lens! 

Hmm ... I could do the same with my Hektor 135mm f/4.5. I guess I need a couple of pieces ... 

Edited March 28, 2016 by ramarren

[MediaFotografie]

...Madrid, Don Quijote and Sancha Pansa (35mm Summilux FLE)

 

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!

[ramarren]

Took the camera along on a short walk at lunch time. Hard to believe how many people just can't believe I'm carrying a 'real camera!' instead of using the iPhone. 

 

Leica SL + Summicron-R 35mm f/2

ISO 400 @ f/2.8 @ 1/160

 

Such it is. 

[steppenw0lf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Now that's an amusing way to obtain a light, 270mm f/8 lens! 

Hmm ... I could do the same with my Hektor 135mm f/4.5. I guess I need a couple of pieces ... 

 

 

Godfrey,

unfortunately the Hector is not very good optically. Get the Elmar 4/135, it was the successor to the Hector and is an "apo" construction, and has the same quality as the Tele-Elmar that pipatree is using. It is also very cheap like the Hector.

I have one from 1962 and it works perfectly - but I do not know if there is a visoflex version. 

Anyway, the Hector is probably not good enough for the effort.

Stephan

Edited March 29, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[ramarren]

Godfrey,

unfortunately the Hector is not very good optically. Get the Elmar 4/135, it was the successor to the Hector and is an "apo" construction, and has the same quality as the Tele-Elmar that pipatree is using. It is also very cheap like the Hector.

I have one from 1962 and it works perfectly - but I do not know if there is a visoflex version. 

Anyway, the Hector is probably not good enough for the effort.

Stephan

 

 

Stephan, 

 

I already own the (1960) Hektor 135mm f/4.5 lens. As to "not very good optically", I dunno: it seems to make some nice photographs... I used the 1952 version of the Hektor for a while many, many years ago doing dental procedure recording for my father's dental practice. I liked it then enough that I bought another in 2012 to use with my M9, and it hasn't disappointed me. It cost me all of US$190 in near-mint condition. 

 

Click above for a gallery of five photos.

 

I also already own the Elmarit-R 135mm f/2.8, which is a more modern, "better performing" lens.

 

I'm not really going to buy anything at this point; I was just enjoying the techno-amusement thought-exercise of assembling a lens head, focusing mount, mount adapter, teleconverter, mount adapter, and mount adapter to achieve a "light weight" 270mm f/9 lens. The complete assembly is likely a little larger than, and perhaps even heavier, than the Elmarit-R 135mm fitted to the 2x Extender-R might be. 

[kaisernchen]

shot in Bangkok, SL with Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90/2.8-4 ASPH, setting at 57mm, 1/50s, f/5.6, ISO 320

process with Capture One Pro.

 

B/K

 

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!

[steppenw0lf]

 

 

Stephan, 

 

I already own the (1960) Hektor 135mm f/4.5 lens. As to "not very good optically", I dunno: it seems to make some nice photographs... 

 

 

Godfrey,

 

sorry, I did not want to talk bad about your lens. I just followed the books of the M lenses. And there the Elmar 4/135 is described as a clear improvement. And it costs currently very little (about the same as the Hector). And I checked, there is also a visoflex version, so it could be used for this setup. And I thought if you buy all the pieces that are missing, it should be worth the effort.

 

Sorry      Stephan

 

P.S. don't underestimate the Elmar. It is a kind of predecessor to the later Apo R 3.4/180 . So I could imagine that it is "better" than the 2.8/135 , but maybe not as "usable".

Edited March 29, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[ramarren]

Godfrey,

 

sorry, I did not want to talk bad about your lens. I just followed the books of the M lenses. And there the Elmar 4/135 is described as a clear improvement. And it costs currently very little (about the same as the Hector). And I checked, there is also a visoflex version, so it could be used for this setup. And I thought if you buy all the pieces that are missing, it should be worth the effort.

 

Sorry      Stephan

 

P.S. don't underestimate the Elmar. It is a kind of predecessor to the later Apo R 3.4/180 . So I could imagine that it is "better" than the 2.8/135 , but maybe not as "usable".

 

 

Oh, I fully expect the Elmar 135/4 is an improvement on the Hektor 135 ... After all, the Hektor lens design dates from at least the 1940s, the Elmar from the late 1950s/early 1960s. Leica generally improves upon lenses when they replace them with newer models.

 

Whether the Elmar 135/4 outperforms the Elmarit-R 135/2.8, I have no idea. They're rather different lens designs, with the Elmarit-R being a good bit later. I'm not about to buy an Elmar and then spend the tedious week or two necessary to test it just to say one outperforms the other ... The Elmarit-R 135 produces lovely results and I'm quite satisfied that it does well enough I don't have to think about it any further.

 

But really, what I find a bit disturbing is that you recommend one lens as better than another purely on the basis of what you've read about it. I don't recommend lenses as being better or worse than another unless I actually have used them both and compared them. I find what I read in books and reviews to be rather unreliable and best taken with a good bit of skepticism. I am only confident enough to say "this works better than that" if I can say it from my own experience. Every bit of equipment advice that I offer has been based on my own use of the item in question. 

 

Nearly any Leica lens has been good enough to do a great job, and outperforms most of the photographers who use them. Myself included.   

[steppenw0lf]

Godfrey, 

 

the "better" is written inside double quotes, that indicates that it is to be taken with a pinch of salt. And I write "I could imagine". Enough hints to see that this is not the scientific truth.

 

I have both the R 2.8/135 and the Elmar 4/135 and am happy with results from both. (And I say it anyway: The Elmar is maybe even slightly better (for me), but I cannot prove it, nor have I the intention to.) As I have the SL only since the end of January I have not a lot of pictures. And I usually do not spend the time proving anything. As the Elmar 4/135 has been laying unused in my drawer for 25 years, I was surprised what a nice quality it offers on the SL and wanted to give this hint to others. (As this is not a very popular lens).

 

You are a professional photographer, so your word is gold and you have to be very careful what you recommend.

I am not, so I can utter my opinion without proving it.

 

With limited means I am not used to test everything with my own eyes. I am happy to get hints from others with more experience.

The books about the Leica M written by Puts are for me (and others) a sort of reference.

And I can assure you that I am usually full of skepticism, maybe more than my fellow human beings like.  

 

Best wishes and thanks for your hints.          Stephan

Edited March 29, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[k-hawinkler]

Hi Dunk:

See attached photo below which is self-explanatory.

Cheers!

Felix

Thanks. Beautiful!

Replace the M-T with an M-E adapter and you are in business with an E or FE camera.

IIRC I posted such a picture on this forum in the past.

 

I have several copies of the Tele-Elmar 135/4 and they perform just great.

Also on Nikon cameras with an adapted short focus mount.

Edited March 29, 2016 by k-hawinkler

[ramarren]

Godfrey, 

 

the "better" is written inside double quotes, that indicates that it is to be taken with a pinch of salt. And I write "I could imagine". Enough hints to see that this is not the scientific truth.

 

I have both the R 2.8/135 and the Elmar 4/135 and am happy with results from both. (And I say it anyway: The Elmar is maybe even slightly better (for me), but I cannot prove it, nor have I the intention to.) As I have the SL only since the end of January I have not a lot of pictures. And I usually do not spend the time proving anything. As the Elmar 4/135 has been laying unused in my drawer for 25 years, I was surprised what a nice quality it offers on the SL and wanted to give this hint to others. (As this is not a very popular lens).

 

You are a professional photographer, so your word is gold and you have to be very careful what you recommend.

I am not, so I can utter my opinion without proving it.

 

With limited means I am not used to test everything with my own eyes. I am happy to get hints from others with more experience.

The books about the Leica M written by Puts are for me (and others) a sort of reference.

And I can assure you that I am usually full of skepticism, maybe more than my fellow human beings like.  

 

Best wishes and thanks for your hints.          Stephan

 

 

We will likely just have to disagree on this matter.

 

Saying, "As the Elmar 4/135 has been laying unused in my drawer for 25 years, I was surprised what a nice quality it offers on the SL" is not the same as saying, "this lens is better than that lens" because you read about it in a book. I don't care what book it was you read about it in, you stated the opinion as a fact of your own evaluation. Erwin's books are wonderful, I have two of them, but I wouldn't give them so much credibility as to state his opinion as my own. I disagree with some of Erwin's evaluations and opinions, based upon my own evaluation of the same piece of equipment. I don't doubt his published specifications for a lens: those are verifiable facts and he does a good job with that.

 

Why not say, "I'm surprised at how nice a job the Elmar 135/4 does with the SL. I don't know how it compares to the Hektor 135, but Erwin Puts suggests it is a superior performer." That's an objective statement. 

 

 

I can't afford to test everything either. I don't bother. I just don't offer evaluations or opinions on things that I haven't tested, although I will state facts about stuff based upon what I find in credible sources. It's very important that we understand the difference. 

[ramarren]

 

 

all: Leica SL + Summicron-R 35mm f/2

[k2pilot]

Northwest Rim by Ian Brooke, on Flickr


SLowly getting the hang of this body. This was one of my first decent shots with it. I hate to admit it, but I really like the SL lens. Its got great colors, it's a bummer its such a tank though.

[larsv]

My first shots with the 90 - 280

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!

[thighslapper]

wow ....... a wonderful variety of animals in your back garden ..... I'm impressed 

 

images are good too......

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ramarren]

Photos look very nice. 

 

hmm. At best when I look out into my garden I see a couple of lazy cats slacking on the tin roof of the parking awning ... 

[LocalHero1953]

Looks like the Pyramids behind the giraffes. You must be in Africa