de-goggling a lens ??

[johntobias]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

the 2 registration pins (silver ) were very tight on mine.A craft knife blade might need to be used !...cannot check as since sold as I jumped ship and went for a Q2 which (discounting tele focal lengths) is astonishingly good !

 

[Marckyokay]

Just now, johntobias said:

the 2 registration pins (silver ) were very tight on mine.A craft knife blade might need to be used !...cannot check as since sold as I jumped ship and went for a Q2 which (discounting tele focal lengths) is astonishingly good !

 

The silver pins are another concern of mine... My thoughts are, were there versions with not-glued parts? I doubt, makes sense to use some glue on them... Since your problem seemed to be two silver pins, were there any glue on yours too? How did you get them apart despite the tight silver pins? (I don't want to bend it accidentalle...)

[johntobias]

No Glue, just years of gunge which acted like glue...simply insert a blade of a craft knife and wiggle (well on mine it was that easy)  

 

[Marckyokay]

10 minutes ago, johntobias said:

No Glue, just years of gunge which acted like glue...simply insert a blade of a craft knife and wiggle (well on mine it was that easy)  

 

Pretty sure it's glue on mine, seems mine is in too "mint" condition... I tried the craft knife approach but no chance i get in between the pieces of metal... put a drop of nail polish remove on there and wait and will repeat, in hope it will weaken the glue. 

22 minutes ago, Marac said:

I think mine must of been taken apart a few times because there was no glue holding it on, only the screws.

Must be fun on a CL or even a FF body too, on my M camera it was always difficult to focus and usually resulted in a poor image, hence I sold it.

Exactly what I thought... from the look of the Mk I goggles I thought it would be easier to achieve 😅

[johntobias]

good luck, the glass is pretty good on these and though rather specialised, it is great fun shooting it on a CL...effectively 200+mm

[Marckyokay]

23 minutes ago, johntobias said:

good luck, the glass is pretty good on these and though rather specialised, it is great fun shooting it on a CL...effectively 200+mm

Thanks... it really seems the assembly (and the screws) never have been meddled with... I'm too squeamish to go and push a crafting knife with some force in there... 

[etzhar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am a relative newcomer to this goggles thing. Why does the Elmarit 135 have these goggles and do I need to keep it on. Havent bought it yet but would like to.

 

I have a leica Mp 240 

[johntobias]

magnifies the viewfinder so makes critical focus easier....with an M240...just switch to live view and use focus peaking, no goggles needed!

 

[jaapv]

Isn't it a whole lot simpler to get the R version, which is optically identical to the M lens?

[Charles Morgan]

7 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Isn't it a whole lot simpler to get the R version, which is optically identical to the M lens?

Generally cheaper in my experience too. 

[johntobias]

I personally don’t go over my 90 ‘cron on the M ,  there isn’t such a thing as the camera for all eventualities!   Most do some things really well but not all things. For example, I needed a camera for some really adverse conditions, snow, rain, mud etc.   A £99 used Nikonos was perfect !

[Charles Morgan]

I only use the 135mm Elmarit with goggles on my M3, and then very infrequently. It unbalances the camera and while it brings up the 90mm frameline, which is decent on the M3, the edges of the frame have an imprecision I don't like. I know with EVFs and similar the choices become a lot simpler, but it wouldn't be a priority lens for me - I do use my R 135mm a bit more, but there is generally a reason why most 135mm of most makers tend to be in very good condition and cheaper is it's a strange focal length. On a crop sensor it is longer.

I'm glad though the operation to de-goggle it is reversible - I hate seeing the 35mm focal length lenses butchered.

[johntobias]

i did use it de-goggled on a CL and a T but not worth the faff , esp as the 55-135 T is so good!

 

[gyoung]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

Isn't it a whole lot simpler to get the R version, which is optically identical to the M lens?

I got mine to use on M3 etc, and the lens head on short mount and adapters on digital stuff, works fine.

 

Gerry

[jaapv]

12 hours ago, Charles Morgan said:

I only use the 135mm Elmarit with goggles on my M3, and then very infrequently. It unbalances the camera and while it brings up the 90mm frameline, which is decent on the M3, the edges of the frame have an imprecision I don't like. I know with EVFs and similar the choices become a lot simpler, but it wouldn't be a priority lens for me - I do use my R 135mm a bit more, but there is generally a reason why most 135mm of most makers tend to be in very good condition and cheaper is it's a strange focal length. On a crop sensor it is longer.

I'm glad though the operation to de-goggle it is reversible - I hate seeing the 35mm focal length lenses butchered.

I hated the screening-off of the viewfinder outside the frame. Personally I was not very impressed by the lens. Resolution was acceptable, but the contrast low and bland. I had a version  1 with the double sliding hood, later versions may be better.

[Charles Morgan]

7 hours ago, jaapv said:

I hated the screening-off of the viewfinder outside the frame. Personally I was not very impressed by the lens. Resolution was acceptable, but the contrast low and bland. I had a version  1 with the double sliding hood, later versions may be better.

I prefer lower contrast, but when I was looking for sample images the other day, I think I found I've taken three shots with the V1 in three years, which tells its own story. I much much prefer the R 135mm - it gets far more use.