28mm on the M 240

[ralphh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

 

I have a Leica M and 50 summarit (by far my favourite focal length for general 'stuff'), but I'd been itching to get something a bit wider to get more environment around photos of my 3 year old daughter. 

 

I agonised for weeks over the choice between the 28mm elmar it and 35mm summarit.

 

In the end I decided 35mm was a bit close to 50 and if I was going to get some environment in, it might as well be a lot and went for the 28.

 

It arrived today and now I'm not so sure it was the right choice. I'm very happy with the focal length - it definitely what I wanted - see slightly creepy example below (first test shot - I don't need a brutal critique, tho input always welcome) but man is it hard to see those frame lines!

 

i can just about see them all if I push my eyeball right into the viewfinder, but then everything goes a bit bleary. 

 

The best technique I can find so far is to pick the edge I care about most and let the other 3 fall where they may. I don't have time with my daughter to check all 4 by moving my head around.

 

How do other people frame with a 28??

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!

[Jeff S]

Some folks use it enough over time to be able judge result despite tight view.  Others use the entire VF as an estimate (especially eyeglass users).  Others use the EVF, which the M can accommodate.

 

The M isn't about perfect framing in any case (although I do prefer the frame lines on the M240, which are optimized for 2m....like the M8.2...unlike the lines on other Ms, which are typically optimized for 1m or .7m).

 

Jeff

[ralphh]

Thanks Jeff, having only recently come over from the very precise world of DSLR, perhaps I'm over thinking this. Perhaps I do just need to let go a bit, and threat it like a 35 with bonus pixels lol, I can always crop very slightly if I get a little bit more than I planned...

 

Seems I may also need to learn to zone focus now as I'm finding focus and recompose harder than with the 50 as I'm closer to my subject and the patch is a lot further from the frame edge, but that's another issue all together!

[Jeff S]

I still love the RF experience, and find it quicker and often more accurate (with 28-90mm) for single point focus than many AF systems (not sports).  Some don't....and some prefer to use an external EVF (or other external finder) for more accurate framing.  

 

Some also like to use a VF magnifier to enlarge the focus patch.....I don't....but, if so, be sure that your eyes are first corrected for the VF (focus patch is set at a virtual distance of 2m).  Otherwise you'll just magnify problems.  I wear glasses that correct for both distance and astigmatism.  Focus and framing is still easy (at age 65) after using Ms for many years.

 

Be sure to check the FAQ if you haven't already to gain valuable tips about focusing and many other issues...   http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/216580-leica-m8-m82-m9-m9p-mm-mtyp240-faqs-questions-with-answers/

 

Jeff

[ralphh]

I love the RF, and while I don't necessarily find it quicker the AF (yet) with the 50, it's pretty close.

 

My issue with the 28mm is not in terms of accuracy - I'm still (relatively) young, and have excellent eyesight - I can very accurately focus the RF (see attached 100% crop from a wide open 50mm summarit shot the other day - I can hit what I'm going for basically every time).

 

My issue with the 28 is more in terms of how fast I can recompose a frame after I've focused on a moving, running, jumping 3 year old that's only 4 feet in front of my camera.

 

With the 50, the RF patch is quite large in the frame so you don't have to recompose very far -it's more of a focus and flick. With the 28 the view is so wide that it feels like I have to move the camera a looong way before I've reframed, and by then she's moved.

 

That said, I'm probably using a 50mm technique on a 28mm lens and making life hard for myself.  There is basically no DoF with a 50 wide open - you NEED to use the RF patch, but looking at DoF scale on my 28... well if I shoot at f11, everything from 3 foot to 12 foot will be in focus....  that should cover basically every photo of her I'm ever likely to take, so perhaps it's a matter of trying to use completely the wrong technique

 

I'm not sure I want to shoot at F11 the whole time though.  I'll take a read of that thread, thanks for the link.  It's only day 1 with the 28.  I'll get used to it

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!

[Gregm61]

As a glasses wearer, I use the technique you first described. I glance around the finder but eventually pick a side that's more important for the subject and just let the 28 Elmarit capture a scene.

[ralphh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hmm, just been reading a bit around focusing on off center subjects, and I hadn't realised that the focus error caused by moving the image plane while recomposing is more pronounced on a wide angle lens.  Makes sense now I think about it.  I suspect that has something to do with my focus issues too - I was recomposing a long way and at f2.8.

[mmx_2]

With 28mm one does not need to worry so much about "exact focus". I normally just focus on what I want to be "focused", recompose quickly and let the depth of field (already at f2.8 you are quite ok) do the rest. I also have a 4-year old in my house that moves around very quickly . With 50mm and the type of photo you show a cropped example of it is of course much more important to nail focus on the eye rather than the eyelash or eye  browes and with my Summilux 50 at f1.4 and a moving target it can be real challange .

 

And congratulations on your purchase I think you will be very happy with it! And I also really like your photo :)

[DwF]

Ralph,

 

You have a great start here.  Of course when your subject is strong as is your little darling here she becomes the focal point so that something like the post (left front) in your picture here becomes diminished and we make a place for it while viewing. I like what you've done here because I love the straight on angle with wall on her left (our right) in composing the image and the post is seen as progressing from those posts further back anyway.

 

I shoot with M9 and love using 28mm with that camera, so I am guessing it will be good for the 240 as well.  I would only that when stopped down, you can learn where to place the tab on the focus ring so that you have and let hyper-focal distance work for you in conjunction with the distance scale for setting aperture. And with 28 as opposed even to 35, it's that much more likely even holding the camera at chest height, you'll be able to adequately frame your image....with some practice it will feel very natural to do......and the camera becomes really quick.

 

Your 28 Elmarit lens has a focus tabs in large part for the purpose of discreet focusing in delicate situations. The idea is that the photographer can place the tab at say 6:30 for 8 foot distance of subject from camera. With your daughter out at about 8 feet, and aperture at f5.6, you will be covered from just over 4 feet to about 13 feet using the distance scale on the lens. Hope this makes sense.

 

David

[ralphh]

Thanks DwF, I actually tried to get her to stand a bit further back so that nearer post wasn't in frame, but no amount of threats or bribes would shift her (thought they did produce that face).

 

I hoped that the fact it's part of a repeating pattern would reduce it's ability to distract and on the upside, she had the decency to stand right on it's shadow so there's a line leading back to her.  Sounds like I got away with it.  I wonder if having it actually strengthens the pattern and therefore the image - even the one behind her is brighter than her face as they're painted near-white, so would it grab attention.  At least the near one is slightly out of focus...

 

I'm trying to learn the tab positioning so I can focus without the RF patch.  I'm getting the feeling that'll be a long term project!!

[DwF]

Thanks Ralph, I've had and still do have kids, so I know. That's why the famous guys have artistic directors on the shot.  Or say in the case of Avedon (and others) they direct the models while someone else is on the shutter

 

You'll get the hand of it quick enough.  I also wear glasses and manage okay with focusing but it can be a pain. And ultimately using 35 is about as wide as I'd go for precise framing in the VF. With the 21, I am getting used to using the aux finder and it is useful....but also is a "use it or lose it " skill!

 

The only thing I might suggest regarding that post, is to darken or increase contrast on it. THat might be good but again, she is priceless and your straight on angle works really well.....it's wat you had to work with and there is plenty of interest and dynamic that your daughter brings to this photo -IMHO

 

David

[ralphh]

I had a similar thought of trying to darken down that post a bit - the photo is currently just a quick B&W convert in LR, but I'll have to get it into photoshop have have a proper play tomorrow

[Exodies]

I would crop square the photograph with the post

[DwF]

That is certainly an option but my two cents is that when working with 28mm it's good discipline to make the frame work so as to learn that focal length which seemed part of what Ralph was looking to do.  Square for this on might be nice though

 

David

[ralphh]

That is certainly an option but my two cents is that when working with 28mm it's good discipline to make the frame work so as to learn that focal length which seemed part of what Ralph was looking to do.  Square for this on might be nice though

 

David

 

Certainly is.  I've been a 50 shooter most of my photography life.  The reason to get a 28 rather than 35 as a second lens for my M was to get something very different and learn it.  Part of me still wishes I got the 35 as I could just pop it on an use it, but that's just the lazy part of me I think lol  

 

I wanted to add a bit of variety to my photos in terms of the way the image is constructed; with a 50, while the background is there (assuming you don't just bokeh it to death), it's not a complete scene.

 

I've tried a quick square crop, with and without a bit of the post, and I actually think I prefer the original - it feels oddly unbalanced to me this way.  Perhaps it's just because it's not how I composed the scene so it looks 'wrong' to me

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!

[Musotographer]

I use an M9 rather than a 240, but it's not that different. Over the last year I've started using wide angles  such as 21 & 15mm which necessitate the use of an external finder, and I have realised how much more accurate is my framing with one. So much so that I have also acquired an external finder for my Elmarit 28 and the results are greatly improved. Even without glasses I find the 28 framelines inaccessible - with glasses accurate framing is hopeless. At first I found first using the RF and then moving to the external finder for framing rather cumbersome, but now that I'm used to it it happens very quickly and instinctively. Though I have on occasion tried to focus with my eye glued to the external finder and wondered why nothing was happening...... 

[Mute-on]

Certainly is.  I've been a 50 shooter most of my photography life.  The reason to get a 28 rather than 35 as a second lens for my M was to get something very different and learn it.  Part of me still wishes I got the 35 as I could just pop it on an use it, but that's just the lazy part of me I think lol  

 

I wanted to add a bit of variety to my photos in terms of the way the image is constructed; with a 50, while the background is there (assuming you don't just bokeh it to death), it's not a complete scene.

 

I've tried a quick square crop, with and without a bit of the post, and I actually think I prefer the original - it feels oddly unbalanced to me this way.  Perhaps it's just because it's not how I composed the scene so it looks 'wrong' to me

 

 

 

I agree reed with you completely. I far prefer the perspective of the original. I just think it's a fabulous photo. 

 

I can only see three sides of the 35 frame lines in an M2. I have 0.58 for the 28 I intend to add at some stage

[Exodies]

If you don't like square then cropping will not be much use. As a square I like the second crop - the frame is completed by showing part of the post and providing the source of the diagonal shadow simplifies things.

[DwF]

I agree with Exodies that the second square cropping works better but ultimately, and after seeing the square, I prefer the original with post and all. That version for me captures the spontaneity and dynamic and the "moment" between photographer and subject. I used to own and use a Rolleiflex quite a bit years ago and love the square, but again, the 28 on a Leica allows for that nice spontaneity and getting in close to the action. Of course it is also good for formal work.

 

Here below is an exposure I made a couple weeks ago walking back from Washington Square toward Bleeker Street.  I think the 28 would have been better for this image but the 21 was what i chose to carry on my M9 that evening.   I originally cropped and even rotated to make the "perfect" capture.  Reflecting on this discussion, I realized I needed to re-look at this image so here is my current version and as I got it...shooting from the hip. Whether it works as a photo I don't know but it is an honest document of what I saw and reacted quickly to as I was approaching.  Comments, criticism is certainly welcome.

 

David

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ralphh]

Perfectly imperfect. I like it a lot with the angle. It adds not detracts