Quirk of using the 2X APO Extender-R with R adapter L - and a work around

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When one uses the 2X APO Extender-R on an R camera, the instructions say that the Extender must first be mounted on the camera and only then, the lens mounted on the Extender. The reason for this is that the mount on the camera, moves the auto-aperture cam on the Extender, into the aperture full open position. The lens can then be safely mounted on the extender. 

However the R adapter L, while electronically smart (transmits ROM data) is mechanically dumb and there is no auto-aperture function. Some folks have suggested this is an error but it would need a solenoid or motor in the adapter to do this - more complication and more expense on what is already an expensive accessory. The problem this causes is that, if one mounts the Extender on the adapter, the auto-aperture cam on the back mount of the Extender is no longer moved into the aperture open position. This means that a lens will not mount on the Extender, as the auto-aperture cam on the lens side of the Extender, fouls the lens mount.

The work around is to mount the Extender first on the lens, while manually moving the auto-aperture cam at the back mount of the extender clockwise, into the diaphragm open position (see photo below).Once the Extender is mounted on the lens, the cam can be allowed to snap back to its rest position. Then the Extender and lens can now be mounted on the R adapter L. Obviously when using the R adapter L with any R lens or with an Extender, there is no auto-aperture and the image will be viewed at the aperture set on the lens, not full open as on an R camera, only closing down to the set aperture when the shutter is fired or the aperture preview lever on the R body is slid down.

Wilson

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 February 20, 2019 by wlaidlaw

[Petercoll]

The Instruction leaflet that came with my Leica R to L adapter clearly emphasises all R lenses manufactured before a certain date, (late 1970's) will cause damage if you try to mount them. I may be mistaken, but this looks like a prohibited example.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wlaidlaw]

22 minutes ago, Petercoll said:

The Instruction leaflet that came with my Leica R to L adapter clearly emphasises all R lenses manufactured before a certain date, (late 1970's) will cause damage if you try to mount them. I may be mistaken, but this looks like a prohibited example.

This is a late APO 2X Extender-R non-ROM  and dates from 1994. The only differences between this and the post 1996 version are the ROM contacts. This is safe to be mounted on my R9, as is shown on an R8 lens compatibility chart. What I set out above as a work around for using the extender with the R adapter L, will also apply to the ROM version of the 2X extender as it is the mechanical cams that are the problem, not the electronics. 

Wilson

Edited February 20, 2019 by wlaidlaw

[ramarren]

Someone else with far more experience with R system lenses and bodies than I'll ever have told me in no uncertain terms that it would be nearly impossible for any R lens to damage the contacts in the R8/R9 bodies.

I don't know one way or another, all my lenses but two are three-cam models and they never damaged any contacts in the R8. 

[wlaidlaw]

8 hours ago, ramarren said:

Someone else with far more experience with R system lenses and bodies than I'll ever have told me in no uncertain terms that it would be nearly impossible for any R lens to damage the contacts in the R8/R9 bodies.

I don't know one way or another, all my lenses but two are three-cam models and they never damaged any contacts in the R8. 

Peter Walkenhorst of APOTELYT has written an excellent article on the Leica reflex lens mounts here https://www.apotelyt.com/photo-camera/leica-r-mount This includes a lens/camera compatibility chart. All my R lenses are ROM but given that I will be using the extender only very infrequently, and there was a £200+ differential in the cost, I opted for a non-ROM but late version of the 2X APO Extender. I was initially worried that the non-ROM was what was preventing my ROM lenses mounting on it, when used with the R adapter L  but as I found out,  it is the auto-aperture cam in the wrong position.

At some point, I may buy a 35 Summilux-R ROM but I am concerned with making this big an investment to fit on a camera, for which there are no official repair facilities or spare parts.

Given my current dispute with Leica, over their refusal to supply a UK specialist Leica repairer, with an essential part to complete the repair of my M7, I am actually pondering the wisdom of buying any more Leica cameras or lenses whatsoever. As a very loyal customer, with over 60 years of using and/or buying Leica cameras, I am disgusted with their stated position on the non-supply of spare parts to third party repairers, which I believe to be in contravention of European Consumer Protection legislation. 

Wilson

[thighslapper]

1 hour ago, wlaidlaw said:

Given my current dispute with Leica, over their refusal to supply a UK specialist Leica repairer, with an essential part to complete the repair of my M7, I am actually pondering the wisdom of buying any more Leica cameras or lenses whatsoever. As a very loyal customer, with over 60 years of using and/or buying Leica cameras, I am disgusted with their stated position on the non-supply of spare parts to third party repairers, which I believe to be in contravention of European Consumer Protection legislation. 

Wilson

My jewellery equipment supplier (Cousins) is in a similar dispute with Swatch over spare parts ...... now in its 2nd or 3rd year ( I have lost track) in the Swiss Courts..... they have found in their favour but Swatch keep appealing on various points ...

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

Peter Walkenhorst of APOTELYT has written an excellent article on the Leica reflex lens mounts here https://www.apotelyt.com/photo-camera/leica-r-mount This includes a lens/camera compatibility chart. All my R lenses are ROM but given that I will be using the extender only very infrequently, and there was a £200+ differential in the cost, I opted for a non-ROM but late version of the 2X APO Extender. I was initially worried that the non-ROM was what was preventing my ROM lenses mounting on it, when used with the R adapter L  but as I found out,  it is the auto-aperture cam in the wrong position.

At some point, I may buy a 35 Summilux-R ROM but I am concerned with making this big an investment to fit on a camera, for which there are no official repair facilities or spare parts.

Given my current dispute with Leica, over their refusal to supply a UK specialist Leica repairer, with an essential part to complete the repair of my M7, I am actually pondering the wisdom of buying any more Leica cameras or lenses whatsoever. As a very loyal customer, with over 60 years of using and/or buying Leica cameras, I am disgusted with their stated position on the non-supply of spare parts to third party repairers, which I believe to be in contravention of European Consumer Protection legislation. 

Wilson

Well, in this case, given that Leica has no R spare parts whatever and will not benefit by you buying used R gear, the relevance of dispute appears to me to be rather academic, no matter how justified.

[wlaidlaw]

54 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Well, in this case, given that Leica has no R spare parts whatever and will not benefit by you buying used R gear, the relevance of dispute appears to me to be rather academic, no matter how justified.

Jaap, 

The dispute is over M parts not R. I need a new intermediate gear shaft to replace the sheared one on my M7. This is an identical part with the same part number, as is used on the current M-A and M-P film cameras. Leica do not claim they don't have it, they just say that they are not prepared to supply one to Leica UK for onward sale to a third party specialist Leica repairer and that I must send my camera to Wetzlar if I want it repaired. As it is currently disassembled, I suspect they would then refuse to repair it on the grounds that a "non-authorised" person has started work on it, just to continue their bloody minded attitude. Leica have already lost this argument in the USA and have been compelled to supply parts to third party repairers. I now question whether I should buy any further new equipment from a company who is failing to meet their obligations under EU Consumer Protection legislation. I am spitting mad over this as I now am the possessor of a £2500 paperweight. 

Wilson

[jaapv]

I know, Wilson, and you are simply right... As a practical workaround, can't you get Don Goldberg to order the part for you?

[wlaidlaw]

23 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I know, Wilson, and you are simply right... As a practical workaround, can't you get Don Goldberg to order the part for you?

Don is trying to order the part for me at present but it depends on whether New Jersey has the part. I fear that Leica may suspect I will try this work around and will just not supply the part to New Jersey. If by some amazing chance I end up with two of these drive shafts, I would be very happy to hang on to a spare, just in case it fractures again, given I will be using my M7 with a Motor-M. I have another UK Leica dealer trying to order for me, as he too disagrees with Leica's position on this and has told them so. 

Wilson

[ramarren]

I would just ask Leica if they would accept the camera in its current disassembled state and complete the work for you. I mean, the camera is long past warranty now (yes?) so they'd simply replace the broken part and reassemble it. 

But that's how I work. I never bother looking to see what legal remedy might compel a company to assist me. I just work with them—try to make them enthused with my project—until I get what I want.

[wlaidlaw]

51 minutes ago, ramarren said:

I would just ask Leica if they would accept the camera in its current disassembled state and complete the work for you. I mean, the camera is long past warranty now (yes?) so they'd simply replace the broken part and reassemble it. 

But that's how I work. I never bother looking to see what legal remedy might compel a company to assist me. I just work with them—try to make them enthused with my project—until I get what I want.

I may have to do that in the end but that is an absolute last resort and I would view that as giving in to their blackmail. 

Wilson

[Nordvik]

Since you have an APO Extender, could you look unto this:  

 

[wlaidlaw]

2 hours ago, Nordvik said:

Since you have an APO Extender, could you look unto this:  

 

I have no idea quite what you want me to do.

My impression of the APO 2X Extender on the CL is that it is an adequate device and given that the alternative might not be getting the shot, as I would never be carrying a 400mm lens around me, while travelling, it serves the purpose it was intended for. I feel it is very much a device to use with a tripod. If I use it at f4 on my 80-200 lens, there is some degradation in contrast and a little in sharpness. If I set my 80-200 at f8, so that with the extender it is f16, the contrast and sharpness is considerably improved. The 80-200 + Extender on the CL, has an EFOV of 240-600mm. This would therefore limit you to a very bright sunny day or using a tripod, unless you were prepared to jack the ISO up a lot. The CL has a fairly remarkable 24MP sensor and even with its considerably smaller pixels, has pretty much the same high ISO performance as my full frame SL. I have not used my CL a lot with my 0.95 Noctilux but I would expect it to perform nearly as well as my SL, albeit with a 75mm EFOV. This will save me a lot of money from avoiding buying the 75mm Noctilux 😀.  It might be interesting to compare results from the 80-200 + Extender on the CL, with those from my Olympus EP-5 with 5 axis IBIS and its 75-300mm ED f4.8-f6.7 Mark II lens (150-600mm EFOV).You can buy the Olympus zoom tele MFT lens, for about the same price as a second hand APO 2X Extender. 

I have no results back yet on film, using the 2X APO Extender with the 80-200 on my R9. 

Wilson

[Nordvik]

I want someone to take a picture with a APO-Extender 2X with a 24MP full frame M or SL and compare it with a T/TL/TL2/CL WITHOUTH extender. Yes, T and TL have 16MP. TL2 and CL have 24MP. I take any at this stage.

 

I was just about to buy a used APO-Extender  when I noticed that a used Leica T cost the same (4K Euro). A 24MP full frame have 10,6MP in the same half frame as a 16MP T/TL. Which will give the better picture: A upsampled 16MP T/TL (or a 24MP TL2/CL) or a 24MP M/SL with an APO-Extender 2X?

[Nordvik]

PS: 400,- for a used Leica T or APO-Extender, not 4000,-.

[wlaidlaw]

Effectively what you are looking for is to compare digital zoom with optical. In other words does the degradation you get by using a smaller sensor equal the degradation you get from using the 2X APO extender on a full frame. 

I will see what I can do tomorrow but I would need to set the 80-200 at 150mm on the SL, with the 2X Extender to get the same as the CL at with the 80-200 at 200, which then has a 300mm EFOV, with its 1.5 crop factor. 

Wilson

Edited February 23, 2019 by wlaidlaw

[Nordvik]

Yep. That is what I am looking for. A comparison at near infinity with tripod would have been nice. Closer than infinity and handheld the MP do not matter so much for my kind of pictures.