wlaidlaw Posted July 8, 2007 Share #41 Posted July 8, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sean,I posted another reply after re-testing the angle of view of my 21mm Elmarit ASPH. The angle of view of my lens is actually quite a bit narrower than the entire vewfinder of the M8. Wilson (wlaidlaw) checked his 21mm Biogon, and that lens' angle of view yields approximately the same results. The entire viewfinder actually is probably closer to the angle of view of a 19 or at least a 20mm lens, just FYI. Joshua, Sorry - I slightly mis-read your post and I think you may have slightly mis-read mine (15 all). The FOV of the Biogon 21 is very slightly wider than the outer edges of the VF at most distances and you do have to "peer round the edge" to get the full picture. Now it may well be that the focal length of the Biogon is actually 20.5mm and the Elmarit 21.5mm (I am only guessing), which would account for the difference. A number of people have commented that the Biogon 21 on the M8 seems to produce an EFOV nearer to a 25mm lens on a 35mm body rather than the theoretical 28mm. I personally would rather live with the partial restriction of view than have to switch my eye backwards and forwards between two VF's. Having to do it with my IIF is bad enough and they are next door to each other. I managed OK on my Contax G2, using the external VF for 16mm Hologon and 21mm Biogon but as that was non-coupled for the Hologon and auto-focus for the 21 Biogon, you did not really need to look through the main VF window unless you needed to check shutter speed. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 8, 2007 Posted July 8, 2007 Hi wlaidlaw, Take a look here Sorry..this is the correct forum. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
fursan Posted July 8, 2007 Author Share #42 Posted July 8, 2007 I am truly grateful to all you knowledgeable and helpful folks that have taken the time to respond to my query. this has assisted me more than you can imagine. sure, it will take me sometime to learn the fundamentals of the rf system in general and the m8 in particular, but i can feel the journey would be worthwhile. the various lenses for the m8 and the nuiances of nomenclature,adaptors,filters,mounts not mentioning their versions seems to me to be a maze that needs to be treaded carefully if is to be conscience of cost/benefit. You guys have eased my pain in this process, and Sean's site has been and shall remain a constant source of reference for me. My hats off to you all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted July 8, 2007 Share #43 Posted July 8, 2007 I need a 21mm. thinking about the biogon 21/2.8 but i am moving to rf for less bulk and the c biogon 21/4.5 seems inviting. Regards. I really like them both but prefer the smaller size of the little one. You'll need to get a 28 mm bayonet from Zeiss and then send that to John Milich to be milled with the indentations. Then have an experienced repair shop (Don Goldberg at DAG is a good one) dismount the original bayonet and mount the new one. The alternative is to get the LTM version of the CV 21/4.0 and use it with an LT-M8 adapter. That's less hassle. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fursan Posted July 8, 2007 Author Share #44 Posted July 8, 2007 I really like them both but prefer the smaller size of the little one. You'll need to get a 28 mm bayonet from Zeiss and then send that to John Milich to be milled with the indentations. Then have an experienced repair shop (Don Goldberg at DAG is a good one) dismount the original bayonet and mount the new one. The alternative is to get the LTM version of the CV 21/4.0 and use it with an LT-M8 adapter. That's less hassle. Cheers, Sean Sean, Thanks a lot for your advice. Regards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted July 8, 2007 Share #45 Posted July 8, 2007 My vote goes for the Biogon 21 f2.8. I would find the f4.5 too restricting. The f 2.8 is a great lens. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted July 8, 2007 Share #46 Posted July 8, 2007 My vote goes for the Biogon 21 f2.8. I would find the f4.5 too restricting. The f 2.8 is a great lens. Wilson Wilson I have the newer CV 21 f/4 (M mount, no adapter needed) and find it a great little lens. I have hand coded it and it works on one M8 and not the other, go figure. At a cost of $379 you can't beat it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted July 8, 2007 Share #47 Posted July 8, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Wilson I have the newer CV 21 f/4 (M mount, no adapter needed) and find it a great little lens. I have hand coded it and it works on one M8 and not the other, go figure. At a cost of $379 you can't beat it. Ed, My first venture into CV world arrives hopefully tomorrow, a 35/1.2 Nokton. It will be a case of 'get the Sharpie out'. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted July 8, 2007 Share #48 Posted July 8, 2007 Which lens will you code it as, Wilson? Apparently the 35 Lux Asph isn't quite right for the Nokton. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted July 8, 2007 Share #49 Posted July 8, 2007 Which lens will you code it as, Wilson? Apparently the 35 Lux Asph isn't quite right for the Nokton. Carsten, Sean suggested the 35 Summicron - its only Sharpie ink and electricity so I can play around. I got a 52mm 486 for it from Michael Huppert last week. Now I don't know whether to try the version IV, 000110, which is what I have my Biogon 35 coded as or 011110 for the ASPH (little black splodge or big black splodge). My guess is that I would not be able to see any difference. It would be interesting to learn from the person who decoded the firmware update, if there was any different coding/correction handling instructions for the two f2 35mm lenses. It is going to be very interesting to see how it compares to my Noctilux, which fingers very tightly crossed, I might also get back tomorrow. Once I have decided on coding, I think it is really time I started to send off my hand coded bayonets to JM to get pits milled into them. I have a spare 24/35 Zeiss bayonet, so that can go off right away. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted July 9, 2007 Share #50 Posted July 9, 2007 I don't think all fields in the firmware are known, but we can could guess that the 35/2A is better corrected than the 35/2 IV, both of which need less correction than the 35/1.4A. I think it was Carl Bretteville and Scott Kirkpatrick who were digging into the firmware, but others have looked too, like Robert Hoehne and Bob Blakley, I think. Perhaps you are thinking of this thread though: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/16846-found-lens-decoder-table-1-09-a.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted July 16, 2007 Share #51 Posted July 16, 2007 Sean, Yes. Please..Please..Please!! Regards. The "Introduction to Rangefinders" article that you and others have asked for is now on-line. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fursan Posted July 16, 2007 Author Share #52 Posted July 16, 2007 The "Introduction to Rangefinders" article that you and others have asked for is now on-line. Cheers, Sean Sean, thank you. I am sure a lot of newcomers to RF shall appreciate you taking the trouble to educate us and ease our slr-rf migration. Regards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted July 16, 2007 Share #53 Posted July 16, 2007 My pleasure. Please let me know if the article covered the ground you needed to have explained. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.