jmahto Posted January 3, 2016 Share #21  Posted January 3, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) The Olympus, total weight ; camera, lens, adapter, EVF : 2 lb 1.1 oz. On my scale it shows 2.8lb.. sample variance? 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/255226-70-200mm-zoom-for-m-240beyond-90-mm-on-the-m240-merged/?do=findComment&comment=2961282'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 Hi jmahto, Take a look here 70-200mm zoom for M (240)?/Beyond 90 mm on the M240 (MERGED). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jmahto Posted January 3, 2016 Share #22  Posted January 3, 2016 After this discussion I was tempted to get out and do some comparison shots between 75-150 Zuiko (40$) and 80-200 Vario ($1500) ...  I will be honest here. For most purposes they are identical. You need to be really pixel peeping to see the difference between the pictures and the subject has to be such that can show the difference in sharpness.  See below: two shots (at 120mm, f4). They are identical. You can't tell from web resolution but let me assure you that even pixel peeping won't tell much difference. There is difference in color though. All are totally unprocessed with no sharpening and handheld. The shutter is kept at 1/180 sec to minimize shake. 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!  Now look at the 100% crop (no resizing) for the subject where it matters. There you have the difference of $1400 visible.  There is also another part which we overlook. How easy it is to focus and get the shot. For Vario it was very easy. The picture was sharp enough to trigger the focus peaking and I could easily see the focus moving from the front of the pod to the back (I tried to focus someplace middle). On Zuiko, it was exercise in frustration since image was not sharp enough. I took around 8 shots to make sure the pod is in focus. As opposed to Vario where each shot focused exactly where I wanted (magnify and focus peaking).  Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!  Now look at the 100% crop (no resizing) for the subject where it matters. There you have the difference of $1400 visible.  There is also another part which we overlook. How easy it is to focus and get the shot. For Vario it was very easy. The picture was sharp enough to trigger the focus peaking and I could easily see the focus moving from the front of the pod to the back (I tried to focus someplace middle). On Zuiko, it was exercise in frustration since image was not sharp enough. I took around 8 shots to make sure the pod is in focus. As opposed to Vario where each shot focused exactly where I wanted (magnify and focus peaking).  ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/255226-70-200mm-zoom-for-m-240beyond-90-mm-on-the-m240-merged/?do=findComment&comment=2961287'>More sharing options...
jmahto Posted January 3, 2016 Share #23  Posted January 3, 2016 ... and this is from my beloved Lanthar... processed of course. 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/255226-70-200mm-zoom-for-m-240beyond-90-mm-on-the-m240-merged/?do=findComment&comment=2961319'>More sharing options...
DrM Posted January 3, 2016 Author Share #24 Â Posted January 3, 2016 I'm gonna hunt for a good vario . Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted January 3, 2016 Share #25 Â Posted January 3, 2016 I'm gonna hunt for a good vario . Thanks! Just look for good clean glass and don't worry about the dents/scratches on the barrel. As mirrorless EVF gets better (SL, Sony or future M), this lens will be even easier to focus and the shooting envelope will only increase (in body stabilization, high ISO). I have used it on Canon as well and it is so easy to focus using optical finder. With EVF we are slowly geting there. Some pics from this lens here:Â https://flic.kr/s/aHsksazZCY Â Even if I don't use 80-200 vario much now, I am keeping it for a long time. Good luck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kilmister Posted January 3, 2016 Share #26  Posted January 3, 2016 Just a constructive comment, jmahto, and nothing personal. LUF is an international site. Apart from USA (and a few odd UK hangovers from the past ... like the pint of beer, and the French pouce) everyone uses metric measurements and it would probably be helpful to quote using the standard kilogram unit. (US scientists use SI units but the US public use a variation of the old Imperial units.) A click on the unit option of your modern scales would probably give Kg and g rather than lb and oz. With best intentions and best wishes to keep taking great photos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted January 3, 2016 Share #27 Â Posted January 3, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just a constructive comment, jmahto, and nothing personal. LUF is an international site. Apart from USA (and a few odd UK hangovers from the past ... like the pint of beer, and the French pouce) everyone uses metric measurements and it would probably be helpful to quote using the standard kilogram unit. (US scientists use SI units but the US public use a variation of the old Imperial units.) A click on the unit option of your modern scales would probably give Kg and g rather than lb and oz. With best intentions and best wishes to keep taking great photos. The scale pics are old pics. I have to get hold of a time machine to go back and change the display unit. Â In general, I refuse to rewire my brain to think in metric system untill USA congress passes a law or LUF moderators insist on it... whichever is later. Â Till then please use the following conversion factor: 1 lb = 0.453592 Kg (I checked, it is same in 2016) Â Happy New Year. Best wishes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted January 3, 2016 Share #28  Posted January 3, 2016 Just a constructive comment, jmahto, and nothing personal....... Peter, I will be in a more receptive mood after couple of Cognac but it is only afternoon right now..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kilmister Posted January 3, 2016 Share #29  Posted January 3, 2016 No problem for me. I was brought up with tons, hundredweights, stones, pounds (weight) and ounces. In our pockets we had pounds (sterling), crowns, half crowns, florins, shillings, sixpences, thruppenny bits, pennies, ha'pennies, and farthings. To measure in length we had leagues, fathoms, yards, feet, inches, and thousandths, as well as chains, rods, poles, and perches. For volumes we had gallons, gills, and baker's dozens, various spoon sizes: tablespoons, dessertspoons and teaspoons. All very complicated and needed a highly wired brain. I am sure I could still work out the old mensuration puzzles we were given at school involving wallpapering a house with walls in imperial sizes at a cost in Pounds, shillings and pence. We also used to have the temperature in F rather than C. I was also born when our head of state was a King and there was rationing ... if that puts it into context.  However, to use an old cliché, our pint is bigger than yours! (Imperial 20 fl oz, US Imperial 16 fl oz)  Simplicity needs no rewiring. Whether we like it or not, SI units have made life easier for the world.  Happy new year to you. I loved your telephoto shots. I was going to say please show more but I've just seen your Flickr link. Good luck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kilmister Posted January 4, 2016 Share #30 Â Posted January 4, 2016 Armagnac is better than Cognac in my book. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efreed2754 Posted January 4, 2016 Share #31 Â Posted January 4, 2016 Don't do it get a cheap Nikon SLR and use the M240 as a RANGEFINDER without silly Heath Robinson adapters!! Horrible cheap and nasty looking and NOT what the camera no matter what you might be told is made for. Â M240 is quite capable of focusing a 135mm lens and that's how it should be - sorry but any other solution is tacky. Â Â My perspective exactly. Â Apo 135 is not too heavy, focuses fine with M and since you seem open to used can get good discount as 135s are not used that much. Â Alternative is Tele-Elmar 4.0 135 which heavier but much less expensive than Apo. Â Can use rangefinder or viewfinder and crop to get to 180 or larger. Â Takes up lots less room too! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted January 4, 2016 Share #32 Â Posted January 4, 2016 My perspective exactly. Apo 135 is not too heavy, focuses fine with M and since you seem open to used can get good discount as 135s are not used that much. Â Alternative is Tele-Elmar 4.0 135 which heavier but much less expensive than Apo. Â Can use rangefinder or viewfinder and crop to get to 180 or larger. Takes up lots less room too! Agree on 135 RF lens. However the original request was about zoom choices. Â However, you can crop an 180 to get 280!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted January 4, 2016 Share #33 Â Posted January 4, 2016 Armagnac is better than Cognac in my book. Thanks. I checked that my local wine shop carries it. I will give it it a try. Dont know how to choose though. They have three four choices and all of them have good reviews.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 4, 2016 Share #34 Â Posted January 4, 2016 I know how It involves buying all four Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kilmister Posted January 4, 2016 Share #35  Posted January 4, 2016 You won't go wrong with Janneau.  I know how It involves buying all four  Hic! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladik Posted January 5, 2016 Share #36 Â Posted January 5, 2016 I feel that I at times could do with focal length from 75 mm up to about 200mm. I do not need fast lens (mainly for landscape) so f 4.0 would be an OK. After some research and excluding Leica R lenses (hesitant to buy on eBay) I feel that the Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/4.0 G ED VR via adapter would fit the bill. Does any one of you Leica M users have any experience with this combination? Thank you in advance. PS: it will be use mainly with lens collar and a Novoflex adapter that can manually adjust lens aperture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted January 5, 2016 Share #37 Â Posted January 5, 2016 I feel that I at times could do with focal length from 75 mm up to about 200mm. I do not need fast lens (mainly for landscape) so f 4.0 would be an OK. After some research and excluding Leica R lenses (hesitant to buy on eBay) I feel that the Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/4.0 G ED VR via adapter would fit the bill. Does any one of you Leica M users have any experience with this combination? Thank you in advance. PS: it will be use mainly with lens collar and a Novoflex adapter that can manually adjust lens aperture. Just for fun I have used my friend's Nikon's AF zoom lens with my novoflex adapter on M240. Although it is possible to shoot, I didn't like the continuous aperture control (via the adapter). I had no idea what aperture I was using and the control was not linear from wide open to stop down (at least for my combo). I also felt that it was way too bulky compared to R lenses. Â As others have suggested before, an old 135mm RF lens is way better choice if you don't need the flexibility of zoom. I have 135 Tele-Elmar f4 and it is a pleasure to shoot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 5, 2016 Share #38  Posted January 5, 2016 Depends on what your subject matter might be.  Quite good, light, extremely good value for money : Olympus Zuiko 75-150. Excellent, universal, not too light: Leica Vario- Elmar R 80-200 (and 2x Apo-Extender) Superb, long, heavy,expensive: Leica Vario-Elmar R 105-280 (+1.4x and 2X Apo-extenders.)  Plus a mass of other brand offerings out there. As long as they have an aperture ring.  I agree with jaapv as to this list.  But, the ultimate image maker in this list is the Vario-Elmar 105-280 that is able to take advantage of the APO extenders.  The lens is a little larger  than the rest listed but, it is just a superb optic.  I really wonder when lenses like this are going to be produced again.  Cameras and sensors keep getting better but, optics are constrained by the physics of size of objectives and the design of the lens and its grind and the precision of the lens mechanics.  The Vario-Elmar was developed to exist at the extreme of these design goals.  Will we ever see a lens like this again?  Here is a photo taken several years ago with the Canon 5D while skiing at Whistler/Blackcomb BC Canada.  Backcomb BC by Rick-Leica, on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 5, 2016 Share #39 Â Posted January 5, 2016 Here is another from the Vario-Elmar 105-280. Â It is from the old Canon 5D which is from the age of the Leica M8. Â But, still a wonderful camera. Â IMG_8729.jpg by Rick-Leica, on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 5, 2016 Share #40  Posted January 5, 2016 Canon L lenses may not be up to Leica standard, but some of their modern zoom versions, e.g. 70-300 L, 100-400 Lii, etc, are built like tanks (the latter was taken apart by lens rentals and considered the best built lens they've torn apart.... http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/canon-100-400-is-l-mk-ii-teardown-best-built-lens-ever ), plus terrific optics, and many of these lenses have water seals, IS, quiet and fast auto focus, close minimum focus, etc. [Designed for Canon, of course, not Leica.]  These are good times for optics, especially with the benefit of computer aided designs.  For Leica, I'd like to see some modern alternatives for tri-Elmars, or even bi-Elmars, in longer focal length combinations than the WATE or MATE.  Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.