Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Printmaker

R lens on M vignette

Recommended Posts

I just bought a 560/6.8 and a R to M adaptor. It is a huge lens but light and easy to use. However, I am experiencing vignetting in the corners. I'm not sure if it is the lens or the R to M adaptor. Has anyone else experienced this? 

Here is a test shot. Nothing fancy. Hand held at F11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I note that Leica's own R-M adapter only lists supported lenses up through 280mm. And I note the same limitation just checking my own M10 R lens menu, also.

I also find this (using an R-M adapter stacked on an M-L adapter on an SL) than mentions vignetting with both the Telyts - 400 6.8 and 560 6.8:

However both of the long "telescopic" Telyts, with just two elements out at the end of a massive tube, have strong curvature of field anyway. Very fuzzy at the long ends of the picture - fuzzy even on the top and bottom unless stopped down to f/16. They were pretty much "Put the subject in the middle of the frame" lenses.

If you crop to get rid of the vignetting, you won't be losing much.

Edited by adan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the adapter. The 'cone of imaging light' is long and will take up more pathway than the adapter allows it to as it nears the camera and thus there is inevitable vignetting. I noticed that some 'quality' adapter manufacturers have actually increased the internal diameter of their newer adapters because earlier models did vignette with some lenses. Not sure if Leica can/will be able to do so, nor whether there are many lenses which will be affected - looks like the long Telyts are a relatively rare lens to be used with the adapters unfortunately. There's always Photoshop:D which I have to admit is a very useful solution to vignetting like this - I have the same problem with some underwater shots where the port corners just intrud,e and have spent time sorting it out after to good effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, pgk said:

Its the adapter. The 'cone of imaging light' is long and will take up more pathway than the adapter allows it to as it nears the camera and thus there is inevitable vignetting. I noticed that some 'quality' adapter manufacturers have actually increased the internal diameter of their newer adapters because earlier models did vignette with some lenses. Not sure if Leica can/will be able to do so, nor whether there are many lenses which will be affected - looks like the long Telyts are a relatively rare lens to be used with the adapters unfortunately. There's always Photoshop:D which I have to admit is a very useful solution to vignetting like this - I have the same problem with some underwater shots where the port corners just intrud,e and have spent time sorting it out after to good effect.

I was just coming to that conclusion. You would think that at $395, it would work with all R lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vignetting is normal with my Telyt-V 6.8/400mm and more with 6.8/560.

The long tube is not wide enough.

Since my slides days (which mounts "almost" hide the vignetting), some years ago, I accept well these "flaws".

Anyway, the strong field curvature don't admit details in corner, even closed down aperture.

 

Well in digital days, cropping is my "new acceptance" for these Telyt.

I've even tried the R mount (as I also use them on my R) with adapters : same results, I don't know why.

Or sometime, I use to get rid of vignetting, with Apo-Extender-R x1.4 or x2 if I feel brave enough myself (on tripod of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's surely the adapter :  my 400 6,8 for Visoflex does not vignette, both with Viso itself or the equivalent LEM/VIS Novoflex adapter : by curiosity, I tried to mount on the Telyt an M Viso lens  to R adapter (my Telyt was in a kit with it… never used having not a R body) and then an R to M adapter (3rd party) … and it DOES vignette a bit… it's someway strange because, after all, you have the stacking of two adapters which make the same length of a Viso 2/3, to say, the same length of the LEM/VIS… :huh: I have to think a bit about and inspect…

Anyway, as above said, a bit of crop is always good for long Telyts… B)

Edited by luigi bertolotti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely the adapter.  My 400/6.8 is the Visoflex version, so if I were to mount it directly to the M camera its focus plane would be behind the camera body!  So to use it on my M240 I first use a 14167 M-R adapter followed by the R-M adapter.  With the Leica one there is significant physical vignetting as you show.  Using a Novoflex adapter there is just a tiny amount.  The rear baffle inside the Novoflex adapter is thinner than on the Leica adapter.   The Novoflex one lacks a tripod attachment but that's no problem with the 400 (or 560) because they have their own tripod attachments.  I use the Leica adapter with the 70-210/4 R zoom, no vignetting and has the tripod base for mounting (or a pistol grip or shoulder stock). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2019 at 2:03 AM, Printmaker said:

I was just coming to that conclusion. You would think that at $395, it would work with all R lenses.

It can't. The M-mount flange is too small a diameter (somewhere between 36 and 40 mm); the R-mount that this lens was designed for has a 47-48mm mounting flange diameter. Such vignetting issues are typical when adapting very long lenses to any camera with a relatively small mount flange diameter.

The M was never intended to be used with such long lenses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ramarren said:

It can't. The M-mount flange is too small a diameter (somewhere between 36 and 40 mm); the R-mount that this lens was designed for has a 47-48mm mounting flange diameter. Such vignetting issues are typical when adapting very long lenses to any camera with a relatively small mount flange diameter.

The M was never intended to be used with such long lenses. 

It’s a little backwards. Such long lenses were never invented to be used on an M camera. :)

Edited by jdlaing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jdlaing said:

It’s a little backwards. Such long lenses were never invented to be used on an M camera. :)

Dunno about 'backwards'. Both are true statements ...

  • M-mount was not designed for extremely long lenses. 
  • R-mount telephoto lenses were never intended to be used on M-mount. 

However you want to say it, the problem is that lens needs a larger diameter mount flange in order to eliminate vignetting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, Leitz made 400mm lenses for the ltm RF cameras from 1937 to 1955, and for the M cameras from 1955 to 1966. Of course these used the Visoflex accessories to view and focus, but these 400s were clearly made for the M and earlier Leicas.

Edited by TomB_tx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TomB_tx said:

On the other hand, Leitz made 400mm lenses for the ltm RF cameras from 1937 to 1955, and for the M cameras from 1955 to 1966. Of course these used the Visoflex accessories to view and focus, but these 400s were clearly made for the M and earlier Leicas.

Yes; a rather different optical design from the long R lenses, optimized for the narrow diameter base mount(s) AND for the Visoflex. That doesn't mean that M-mount was intended to be used with very long lenses, it simply says that Leica designed lenses for that purpose when they needed to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent the lens back. I'm replacing it with a 180 Elmarit R and a 2X tele-convertor. 

Because I use either a 35 or 50 Summicron for 90% of my photos, I really didn't want to spring for something like a 280 Apo right now. Inspired by photographing last month's blood wolf full moon eclipse and this being the season for 60 foot waves here in Hawaii, I wanted an inexpensive long lens for occasional use. I considered an old 400/5.6 Nikkor but thought it would be too many adaptors involved. And I thought the 560 would work. Oh well, sometimes I get things wrong.

BTW, I shot the moon with my wife's tripod mounted Olympus EM1 using a 75-300 zoom on the  4/3 format. It worked but the results were softer than either one of us consider acceptable. She is replacing that lens with a 40-150/2.8 and a 1.4 tele-convertor. With what is left of the budget, I'm going the 180 + 2X route for now with a 280 Apo on the list for later purchase.

Thanks to everyone for the help sorting this one out.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...