Jump to content
lct

7artisans 35/2 on APS-C

Recommended Posts

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 by lct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Le Chef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Le Chef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
 
C1040199
 
C1040202
 
C1040210
 
C1040212
 
C1040214

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]  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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...