lct Posted August 10, 2018 Author Share #21 Posted August 10, 2018 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) That’s back to front. A 50mm M lens mounted to a CL will have the same approximate FoV as the 35mm TL lens mounted on the CL. So the real comparison should surely be between lenses with the same FoV, no? No no no . A 50mm M lens has a 50 x 1.5 = 75mm FoV on the CL. Great opportunity BTW. Instead of mounting my big Summilux 75/1.4 to my M240 i carry more and more a Summilux 50/1.4 (or Sonnar 50/1.5) on the CL. Same FoV but much lighter combo. Edited August 10, 2018 by lct Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 Hi lct, Take a look here 7artisans 35/2 on APS-C. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Le Chef Posted August 11, 2018 Share #22 Posted August 11, 2018 (edited) So a 35mm TL lens mounted on an M or any full frame camera would not have the equivalent FoV of a 50mm M lens? And a 60mm TL lens would not have the equivalent FoV of a 90mm M lens when mounted on an M? Despite Leica claiming that to be the case. So what would their FoV be the equivalent of? 28mm and 40mm? Edited August 11, 2018 by Le Chef Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chef Posted August 11, 2018 Share #23 Posted August 11, 2018 Or lets make this simple: On my old full frame camera my two go-to lenses were 28mm and 50mm. Let’s say I want to achieve the same FoV on a CL using M lenses: which focal length M lenses do I need to buy? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted August 11, 2018 Share #24 Posted August 11, 2018 18mm and 35mm. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 11, 2018 Author Share #25 Posted August 11, 2018 So a 35mm TL lens mounted on an M or any full frame camera would not have the equivalent FoV of a 50mm M lens? And a 60mm TL lens would not have the equivalent FoV of a 90mm M lens when mounted on an M? [...] I know little about TL lenses sorry but they cannot be mounted to M cameras IINW and they do not cover the FF format on the SL so they work in APS-C mode there. Accordingly, your 35mm and 60mm TL lenses have a 35 x 1.5 = 52mm and a 60 x 1.5 = 90mm FoV on the SL but they won't use the 24MP of the sensor then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chef Posted August 11, 2018 Share #26 Posted August 11, 2018 (edited) Thank you - you have just confirmed my original point. To do a comparison on the CL of the 35mm TL lens, based on FoV, you would need to compare it to a 50mm M lens. So 18TL = 28M 23TL = 35M 35TL = 50M 60TL = 90M Edited August 11, 2018 by Le Chef Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted August 11, 2018 Share #27 Posted August 11, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thank you - you have just confirmed my original point. To do a comparison on the CL of the 35mm TL lens, based on FoV, you would need to compare it to a 50mm M lens. So 18TL = 28M 23TL = 35M 35TL = 50M 60TL = 90M sure. so what's your point? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chef Posted August 11, 2018 Share #28 Posted August 11, 2018 My original question was why compare the 35mm TL lens to a 35mm M lens when they have a different FoV on the CL, when surely a 50mm M lens was the more appropriate comparison. I was told I was wrong, but apparently now I’m not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 11, 2018 Author Share #29 Posted August 11, 2018 Couple of snaps with CL and 7a 35/2 at f/2 below. Sharpness in between Summicrons 35/2 asph and 35/2 v4 at first glance. Bokeh a bit nervous but could be worse. Flare can be a problem when the sun is just outside the frame. Cupping my left hand around the lens made enough shade though. I ordered a cheap vented hood for rangefinders but i doubt it can be efficient enough so i ordered a rubber B+W hood as well. I have not received them yet so the pics below have been shot w/o hood. C1040196 (full size: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-5b8jpxm/0/e50608c1/O/i-5b8jpxm.jpg) C1040199 (full size: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-c4ZjgXJ/0/d2d46c55/O/i-c4ZjgXJ.jpg) C1040202 (full size: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-ZdmqNbG/0/76d7fb84/O/i-ZdmqNbG.jpg) C1040210 (full size: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-WsGkXPz/0/4da2e6b7/O/i-WsGkXPz.jpg) C1040212 (full size: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-sXBNpwk/0/d48dd03e/O/i-sXBNpwk.jpg) C1040214 (full size: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-vrKSKKf/0/1ebc1636/O/i-vrKSKKf.jpg) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 11, 2018 Author Share #30 Posted August 11, 2018 My original question was why compare the 35mm TL lens to a 35mm M lens when they have a different FoV on the CL, when surely a 50mm M lens was the more appropriate comparison. I was told I was wrong, but apparently now I’m not. M35 and T35 have the exact same FoV on the CL: 35 x 1.5 = 52mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted August 11, 2018 Share #31 Posted August 11, 2018 Thank you - you have just confirmed my original point. To do a comparison on the CL of the 35mm TL lens, based on FoV, you would need to compare it to a 50mm M lens. So 18TL = 28M 23TL = 35M 35TL = 50M 60TL = 90M sure. so what's your point? My original question was why compare the 35mm TL lens to a 35mm M lens when they have a different FoV on the CL, when surely a 50mm M lens was the more appropriate comparison. I was told I was wrong, but apparently now I’m not. Depends on what the basis of comparison you're trying to draw is. My entry into this thread stated: "I hear a lot of complaints that the 'Lux-T 35mm is large. Looking at the photo, it's about the same size as my Elmarit-R 28mm f/2.8 ... my current "wide-normal"... and it's probably about the same weight. I like that size/weight lens on the CL!" From a field of view perspective, with my lens kit in mind pairing approximately equivalent FoVs: L-mount = M-mount = R-mount 11-23TL = WATE = XX (sold my SER15) * 18TL = Voigtländer Color-Skopar 28mm f/3.5 = Elmarit-R 19mm f/2.8 v1 ** 23TL = Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2 = ?? *** 35TL = Summicron-M 50mm f/2 = Elmarit-R 28mm f/2.8 v1 **** 60TL = Summarit-M 75mm f/2.4 = Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4 and Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm f/2.8 ***** 135TL? = M-Rokkor 90mm f/4 = Summicron-R 90mm f/2 ****** * I sold my Super-Elmar-R 15mm because it was just too big a lens on bodies smaller than the SL to be ergonomic, and it does not work with the Leicaflex SL (traded the Elmarit-R 24mm for the 28mm for this latter reason too). ** The R19 I have has a very large front element as well, but overall is still quite handy on the CL; the CS28 works well but is a bit more difficult ergonomically; an 18TL would be a nice fit here for a compact travel lens. *** I don't really find myself missing this FoV because I have the 19 and 28 mm, which split the difference between them. **** The two-stops faster TL35 normal would be a great addition to the kit at some future point. ***** The APO 60 TL macro lens when I tested it against the R60 Macro produces results that are so incredibly similar on the CL that there's really little point to buying it unless I really really want the AF ability. ****** I use longer focal lengths like this infrequently enough, and have enough choices between the M135 and R90, R180, 2x Extender-R, etc, that I'll likely never buy a TL lens in this focal length range. It's fun to analyze the choices and what compares to what, and how. As it is, the three lenses (TL11-23, TL18, and TL35) are on my very short list as "future interesting", because what I have really does suffice and make me very happy already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 17, 2018 Author Share #32 Posted August 17, 2018 [...] Flare can be a problem when the sun is just outside the frame. Cupping my left hand around the lens made enough shade though. I ordered a cheap vented hood for rangefinders but i doubt it can be efficient enough so i ordered a rubber B+W hood as well. [...] Just received those hoods. The vented hood is useless to reduce that kind of flare, as expected, and the B+W rubber hood is just a bit more efficient. Poor resistance to flare when highlights are outside the frame is thus a flaw of this otherwise very neat little lens that is outperformed by my Summicron 35/2 asph v1 from this viewpoint but also by my 35/1.4 FLE, 35/1.4 v2 and 35/2.5 Leica M lenses, let alone the superior ZM 35/2.8. The 7a 35/2's resistance to flare is much better when highlights are inside the frame though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 28, 2018 Author Share #33 Posted August 28, 2018 About flare, i got no problem with the 7a 35/2 when the sun is inside the frame: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-6hzPzb2/0/abc18b46/L/i-6hzPzb2-L.jpg. But flare appears when the sun is outside the frame, even with a B+W rubber hood on the lens: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-kpw2QCG/0/41ef5fce/L/i-kpw2QCG-L.jpg. Suffice it to add some shade to the hood, here with my left hand, to remove flare almost completely though: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-zTXVHVw/0/d997e116/L/i-zTXVHVw-L.jpg. Easier to do with an EVF than with an RF obviously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
burkey Posted November 4, 2018 Share #34 Posted November 4, 2018 I have a 7a 35/f2 with m-mount on the way now from B+H. Have had great luck with the 7a 25/f1.8 with the FX mount on my Fuji bodies. LCT et al - is it safe to assume there are no mounting issues with the 7a 35/f2 using a Leica M to L adapter onto the digital CL body? Thanks in advance. . . . David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 4, 2018 Author Share #35 Posted November 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, burkey said: is it safe to assume there are no mounting issues with the 7a 35/f2 using a Leica M to L adapter onto the digital CL body? It is indeed, as far as my sample is concerned at least. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
burkey Posted November 4, 2018 Share #36 Posted November 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, lct said: It is indeed, as far as my sample is concerned at least. LCT, thank you. I kept reading posts regarding the need to have the rear of the lens modified. 'Wasn't sure it it was an issue with the digital CL or perhaps only with the analog CL. . . . David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 4, 2018 Author Share #37 Posted November 4, 2018 The 7a 35/2's optical cell protrudes more deeply than that of most M lenses actually, which could explain that it may hit the film CL's metering arm. Just a guess as i've not used the film CL for a couple of decades at least. Fact is the lens doesn't protrude deeply enough to be a problem on the digital CL anyway. To reassure you, the lens doesn't protrude deeper than the flange of the M to L adapter so there is zero risk that it could hit the shutter let alone the sensor of the camera. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayewing Posted November 4, 2018 Share #38 Posted November 4, 2018 I think the worry about the rear protrusion of 7artisans lenses arises from the known issue with the 50mm f1.1. It will not focus to infinity when used on CL, TL and SL lenses. If purchasing this lens it is best best to order direct from 7artisans website specifying that you want the lens with the TL/SL modification. Resellers of the 7artisans lenses do not usually stock the modified lens. As far as I know none of the other M mount lenses made by 7artisans have this problem. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
burkey Posted November 5, 2018 Share #39 Posted November 5, 2018 Once I have the lens in-house I will post an image of it mounted on the M to L adapter with the lens optical cell and adapter flange visible. Perhaps that may be of help to others. . . . David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
burkey Posted November 8, 2018 Share #40 Posted November 8, 2018 My 7a 35/f2 arrived this yesterday afternoon from B+H Photo. Initial sense is that it's a "good copy". The lens appears to be very sharp wide open and renders a nice image. Attached are some grab shots from around our home in northeastern Vermont taken yesterday as well as a quick iphone image showing the rear lens optical cell when mounted in a Leica M to L adapter. . . . David 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! Flickr 7a Exports (3 of 12) by David Ballou, on Flickr Flickr 7a Exports (7 of 12) by David Ballou, on Flickr Flickr 7a Exports (2 of 12) by David Ballou, on Flickr Flickr 7a Exports (5 of 12) by David Ballou, on Flickr IMG_0691 by David Ballou, on Flickr 2 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Flickr 7a Exports (3 of 12) by David Ballou, on Flickr Flickr 7a Exports (7 of 12) by David Ballou, on Flickr Flickr 7a Exports (2 of 12) by David Ballou, on Flickr Flickr 7a Exports (5 of 12) by David Ballou, on Flickr IMG_0691 by David Ballou, on Flickr ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/287351-7artisans-352-on-aps-c/?do=findComment&comment=3627790'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now