Jump to content

40mm Leica Summicron as a compact lens?


stephengv

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Love the lens and the subject 😉:

 

 

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!

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always appreciated the Summicron-C 40mm or Elmar-C 90mm.  However to avoid the limitations of the 40mm for the CL, how about the 50mm Summarit F2.5 as it is quite sharp, very light at 195grams, registers on the M's viewfinder frames and utilizes standard E39 filters.  Currently around $1k US.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jDD-m410 said:

I have always appreciated the Summicron-C 40mm or Elmar-C 90mm.  However to avoid the limitations of the 40mm for the CL, how about the 50mm Summarit F2.5 as it is quite sharp, very light at 195grams, registers on the M's viewfinder frames and utilizes standard E39 filters.  Currently around $1k US.

Thank you for the suggestion. I appreciate the 50 Summarit, however I already have a 50mm Summicron V. So it will be redundant to have the Summarit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stephengv said:

Thank you for the suggestion. I appreciate the 50 Summarit, however I already have a 50mm Summicron V. So it will be redundant to have the Summarit. 

Sorry I should have said 35mm Summarit F2.5.  It is the lens that is 195 grams.  Good luck with the search.  jDD

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jDD-m410 said:

Sorry I should have said 35mm Summarit F2.5.  It is the lens that is 195 grams.  Good luck with the search.  jDD

No worries. I already got the 40mm summicron. I’m loving it and the size is perfect as an everyday carry. Already got the 35 summicron ASPH, so 40 was the best choice haha

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must confess that the Minolta 40 f/2 has been a fascination of mine for years, but one I’ve never actually purchased mostly owing to the framelines issue. I shoot both anM9M and ME, essentially both variants of the M9 platform. Can anyone tell me what distance their viewfinders are calibrated to and whether this setting is suitable for my M9 variants? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ace - I can't tell you for sure which distance your M9-ish framelines are optimized for (but I'm sure someone can).

But I did happen to try out an M-Rokkor 40mm on my M10 last week - M10 framelines optimized for 2m framing. The lens had been modified to bring up the 35mm lines (an easy but irreversible grinding-down of a scant mm from the flange of the lens that presses the frame-selection tab in the camera).

At 3 meters it behaved as below - the final image was slightly less that the 35mm framelines (in red) indicated. I framed for the outer ends of the large white and black lens boxes at eye level - the lens cropped off those ends.

At long distances (effective infinity - 100 feet or more) the image was just barely cropped from what the 35 lines showed (1-2%)

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!

At the close-focus limit - 0.8m - it cropped more. But frankly, I got what I "saw" and intended, close enough, since the M10's higher viewfinder magnification puts the 35mm framelines right on the ragged edge of my view anyway. Personally, I prefer tight framing to getting gobs of unwanted background that has to be cropped later (especially if I've moved in close anyway), so I know I could work with this. It's tempting.

(also an example of 40mm f/2 bokeh. ;) Pretty similar to the 35s of the same era).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

One solution to the framelines issue is to mount the lens on the SL as here, or another L-mount camera. I wanted to make sure the Coast Guard ship in the background to the right was in the shot.

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!

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, CharlesL said:

One solution to the framelines issue is to mount the lens on the SL as here, or another L-mount camera.

Although I'm not sure how that helps the original poster make his M240 (or any other M) smaller. ;)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, adan said:

Ace - I can't tell you for sure which distance your M9-ish framelines are optimized for (but I'm sure someone can).

But I did happen to try out an M-Rokkor 40mm on my M10 last week - M10 framelines optimized for 2m framing. The lens had been modified to bring up the 35mm lines (an easy but irreversible grinding-down of a scant mm from the flange of the lens that presses the frame-selection tab in the camera).

At 3 meters it behaved as below - the final image was slightly less that the 35mm framelines (in red) indicated. I framed for the outer ends of the large white and black lens boxes at eye level - the lens cropped off those ends.

At long distances (effective infinity - 100 feet or more) the image was just barely cropped from what the 35 lines showed (1-2%)

At the close-focus limit - 0.8m - it cropped more. But frankly, I got what I "saw" and intended, close enough, since the M10's higher viewfinder magnification puts the 35mm framelines right on the ragged edge of my view anyway. Personally, I prefer tight framing to getting gobs of unwanted background that has to be cropped later (especially if I've moved in close anyway), so I know I could work with this. It's tempting.

(also an example of 40mm f/2 bokeh. ;) Pretty similar to the 35s of the same era).

Thanks. Ive been wondering about this. As a walkabout, the effect at street lens 3 meters is acceptable. I believe it would be more acceptable on the M9 platform owing to the focus distance optimization used on those cameras. Maybe someone else wants to chime in on this? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ace,

I've found at which distance the M9 frame lines are "setting for 1m" , only for 50mm, in page 131 of the M9 manual:

Set to 0.7 m: The sensor records approx. one frame width less.

Set to 1m: The sensor records exactly the image field displayed by the inner edges of the bright­line frame.

Set to infinity: The sensor records approx. 1 (vertically) /4 (hori­zontally) frame width(s) more.

 

At 3m "in-between" so ...

 

I have M-Rokkor 40mm and don't rely much on the "loose framing" with 35mm frame lines (as it was modified to show "35" before by the former owner).

I just use it as it is without trying to frame "right" as usual in my M using which can have more or less than 15% "accuracy in framing".

Using it a while may help with trials/errors.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, adan said:

Although I'm not sure how that helps the original poster make his M240 (or any other M) smaller. ;)

Yes. Perhaps Leica will decide some day that the rangefinder can go no further -- and that the door is then open to create a camera of M size (unlike SL), full frame (unlike CL), and mirrorless mount.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another shot with the 40: 

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!

Edited by stephengv
Link to post
Share on other sites

Am 13.7.2019 um 18:57 schrieb adan:

Ace - I can't tell you for sure which distance your M9-ish framelines are optimized for (but I'm sure someone can).

But I did happen to try out an M-Rokkor 40mm on my M10 last week - M10 framelines optimized for 2m framing. The lens had been modified to bring up the 35mm lines (an easy but irreversible grinding-down of a scant mm from the flange of the lens that presses the frame-selection tab in the camera).

At 3 meters it behaved as below - the final image was slightly less that the 35mm framelines (in red) indicated. I framed for the outer ends of the large white and black lens boxes at eye level - the lens cropped off those ends.

At long distances (effective infinity - 100 feet or more) the image was just barely cropped from what the 35 lines showed (1-2%)

At the close-focus limit - 0.8m - it cropped more. But frankly, I got what I "saw" and intended, close enough, since the M10's higher viewfinder magnification puts the 35mm framelines right on the ragged edge of my view anyway. Personally, I prefer tight framing to getting gobs of unwanted background that has to be cropped later (especially if I've moved in close anyway), so I know I could work with this. It's tempting.

(also an example of 40mm f/2 bokeh. ;) Pretty similar to the 35s of the same era).

I owned the 40/2 M-Rokkor and always framed with the 35mm framelines and stepped about one meter back to compensate those 5mm. Did the job pretty well.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
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.

×
×
  • Create New...