M to L Adapter

[stevegaskin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Apologies if this topic has been covered before somewhere. Apart from the transfer of EXIF data when used with 6-bit lenses, what other features does the Leica adapter offer over, for example, the Novoflex version which is half the price? 
 

Thanks

Steve

[lct]

According to its specs (link), the Novoflex LET/LEM adapter cannot carry any information between the lens and the camera. As a consequence of this, the CL won't recognize 6-bit coded M lenses automatically and focus magnification cannot be triggered with the top dials of the camera. I have no experience with this adapter but my NEX/LEM for Sony cameras works fine and looks superbly made so i guess the LET/LEM must be the same quality.

[Advertisement]

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

[stevegaskin]

23 minutes ago, lct said:

According to its specs (link), the Novoflex LET/LEM adapter cannot carry any information between the lens and the camera. As a consequence of this, the CL won't recognize 6-bit coded M lenses automatically and focus magnification cannot be triggered with the top dials of the camera. I have no experience with this adapter but my NEX/LEM for Sony cameras works fine and looks superbly made so i guess the LET/LEM must be the same quality.

Thanks lct; do you know if focus peaking works?

[ramarren]

In my experience, in addition to the above, the Novoflex mount adapters tend to be a little short on mount register compared to the M Adapter L, allowing more M lenses to focus slightly past infinity. This says that the focusing scale when using them is slightly less accurate, and means that it's a little more effort to focus at infinity accurately (you can't just set the focusing mount to the infinity mount, particularly with a short focal length lens). 

Focus peaking will work if you have it enabled. It will not turn on automatically when you turn the focusing mount, it simply needs to be on all the time. The same is true for the M Adapter L.

G

Edited October 31, 2019 by ramarren

[stevegaskin]

3 minutes ago, ramarren said:

In my experience, in addition to the above, the Novoflex mount adapters tend to be a little short on mount register compared to the M Adapter L, allowing more M lenses to focus slightly past infinity. This says that the focusing scale when using them is slightly less accurate, and means that it's a little more effort to focus at infinity accurately (you can't just set the focusing mount to the infinity mount, particularly with a short focal length lens). 

Focus peaking will work if you have it enabled. It will not turn on automatically when you turn the focusing mount, it simply needs to be on all the time. The same is true for the M Adapter L.

G

Thanks ramarren. Would the disparity vary much depending on focal length; I'm probably only going to use 28mm/35mm/50mm Leica lenses. Also, do you know the answer to the focus peaking question?

Thanks

[ramarren]

As I said, focus peaking works if you have it enabled. M lenses cannot trigger the CL (or T/TL) bodies to enable it automatically when you turn the focusing mount, it has to be turned on and off manually. When I want to turn it on and off in use, such as when doing copy work, I set focus peaking on the CL to be controlled by the right dial button for convenience. (Actually, I can't speak for how well the T/TL support focus peaking with M lenses since I don't own one of those bodies; I own the CL.)

Regards the mount registration and focus scale accuracy, think about it: the mount registration will be constant for any given body and adapter. How close it is to the original M-mount registration will always be off by the same amount. BUT, given that M-mount lenses are basically all unit-shift focusing lenses, the amount that the distance scale is off depends on the focal length since a short focal length lens requires less movement from the nominal infinity mark to set focus on objects closer. So you'll see more disparity on the focusing scale's accuracy with a 28mm lens than you will with a 35mm, 50mm, or a 90mm lens, and more still with a 16, 18, or 21mm lens compared to the 28mm as well. 

If you're talking about 28/35/50mm Leica lenses on the CL or T/TL series bodies, also remember the smaller format means these lenses will provide a narrower FoV than they do on a Leica M10 body because the format is smaller (Ms except for the M8 are all 24x36mm format; CL/T/TL bodies are all 16x24mm format). So if you use those lenses on your M and want the same field of view choices on the smaller format bodies, you'll need 18, 24, and 35mm focal length lenses instead ... which means any mount registration focusing scale inaccuracies are magnified by the shorter focal lengths needed. 

For many uses, and because the CL/T/TL bodies are TTL viewing/focusing, these focusing scale inaccuracies aren't a significant issue. But if you set focus by scale often (such as when doing street photography and focusing by zone and f/stop rather than performing critical focus through the viewfinder), the more variable mount registration of the Novoflex adapters can be a bit of a pain compared to the M Adapter L. And then there's the fact that you can't use the dial for magnification, or enable a lens profile for the shorter focal lengths ... To me, the advantage of the way focus magnification and focusing scale accuracy works with the M Adapter L is worth the premium price, since I use M and R lenses on my CL exclusively. (I don't own any native L mount lenses.)

G

[stevegaskin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 minutes ago, ramarren said:

As I said, focus peaking works if you have it enabled. M lenses cannot trigger the CL (or T/TL) bodies to enable it automatically when you turn the focusing mount, it has to be turned on and off manually. When I want to turn it on and off in use, such as when doing copy work, I set focus peaking on the CL to be controlled by the right dial button for convenience. (Actually, I can't speak for how well the T/TL support focus peaking with M lenses since I don't own one of those bodies; I own the CL.)

Regards the mount registration and focus scale accuracy, think about it: the mount registration will be constant for any given body and adapter. How close it is to the original M-mount registration will always be off by the same amount. BUT, given that M-mount lenses are basically all unit-shift focusing lenses, the amount that the distance scale is off depends on the focal length since a short focal length lens requires less movement from the nominal infinity mark to set focus on objects closer. So you'll see more disparity on the focusing scale's accuracy with a 28mm lens than you will with a 35mm, 50mm, or a 90mm lens, and more still with a 16, 18, or 21mm lens compared to the 28mm as well. 

If you're talking about 28/35/50mm Leica lenses on the CL or T/TL series bodies, also remember the smaller format means these lenses will provide a narrower FoV than they do on a Leica M10 body because the format is smaller (Ms except for the M8 are all 24x36mm format; CL/T/TL bodies are all 16x24mm format). So if you use those lenses on your M and want the same field of view choices on the smaller format bodies, you'll need 18, 24, and 35mm focal length lenses instead ... which means any mount registration focusing scale inaccuracies are magnified by the shorter focal lengths needed. 

For many uses, and because the CL/T/TL bodies are TTL viewing/focusing, these focusing scale inaccuracies aren't a significant issue. But if you set focus by scale often (such as when doing street photography and focusing by zone and f/stop rather than performing critical focus through the viewfinder), the more variable mount registration of the Novoflex adapters can be a bit of a pain compared to the M Adapter L. And then there's the fact that you can't use the dial for magnification, or enable a lens profile for the shorter focal lengths ... To me, the advantage of the way focus magnification and focusing scale accuracy works with the M Adapter L is worth the premium price, since I use M and R lenses on my CL exclusively. (I don't own any native L mount lenses.)

G

Hi again, thanks very much for your detailed explanation; very helpful.    I'm hoping in the not too distant future investing in an M10.  In the meantime I'm thinking of selling my TL 18-56 and a Zeiss 50mm ZM (I bought for my film M4-P), which I don't use much and getting a Leica Lens + adapter for use on the CL now then the M later. Just debating which focal length I can get the most of now, then later. I shoot mostly landscapes and street so given your comments maybe either 35mm or 50mm Summicron. 

Edited October 31, 2019 by stevegaskin

[ramarren]

I had the M-D 262 and an SL. The M Adapter L allowed me to migrate my lenses back and forth between the two bodies and the FoVs remained constant since the formats are the same. When I sold the SL (over time after I retired I found I just wasn't using it enough to warrant all that value sitting on the shelf depreciating), I bought the CL because I still occasionally needed a TTL focusing/viewing camera and I much prefer the CL's user interface over the T/TL interface as well as the built-in EVF. At that point, switching the lenses back and forth between them became a tiny bit more problematic because if I wanted the FoV of a 35mm lens on the M-D but wanted the use of the CL's TTL viewing/focusing, I needed a 24mm lens. It's a minor thing, if you have the lenses already (as I did) but it makes it more likely that you'll forget and carry the wrong lens. 

That said, over the course of a year, I found my use of the M-D diminished and I was using the CL for everything, with no loss in quality to my photographs. It's not a lot smaller but it is a good bit lighter body, which helps when you're out in the field or walking about in the city doing street. I finally decided that the M-D had been obsoleted for my use by the "better" function of the CL viewfinder and sold the M-D body, and by that time I'd become completely accustomed to the correct focal lengths for the CL format anyway. 

So ... the larger format bodies do have an advantage for when you want wider field of view as you need less extremely short focal lengths, and the smaller format bodies have an advantage for when you want narrower FoV since you get that "1.5x crop factor" gain in reach with still light and fast lenses (135mm becomes like a 200mm lens on the M format, for example). For street with the CL, I mostly love the FoV and DoF provided by a 28mm lens ... almost identical to what you'd get with a 43mm lens on the M10 ... and 50mm when I'm looking to work with much tighter framing. My ancient 1972 generation  'Lux 35 v2 is a superb normal "50mm equivalent" on the CL. For wide, I like extremely wide and the Voigtländer HyperWide 10mm is more appealing to me than the (also very excellent) Leica 11-23mm, and about a third the price. 

So I'm now without an FF camera and I do love very very wide views ... but there's little real benefit to buying an M or other FF camera for the smallish difference. What's going to work better for me is to move up to MFDigital with a Hasselblad and their superb 21mm lens next: that'll will prove a wonderful complement to the CL. 

Sorry to rattle on a bit but when I hear people saying that they're about to move through the same sequence of expensive equipment purchases that I've been through, I hope that it's helpful to relate my own journey through this mess..  

G

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!

Leica CL + Voigtländer HyperWide 10mm f/5.6

[lct]

1 hour ago, stevegaskin said:

Thanks lct; do you know if focus peaking works?

Yes it does, see what Ramarren said above. Now if you intend to nail focus, peaking is not as accurate as focus magnification which is easier to trigger with the Leica adapter. 
Also the latter allows the camera to apply lens profiles automatically. Won't make obvious difference on 35mm or 50mm lenses but on wider ones, like 21mm below, distortion can be adjusted automatically this way. 

CL, M 21/3.4 asph, lens profile on:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-t9MpWtm/0/0bad8edc/O/i-t9MpWtm.jpg

CL, M 21/3.4 asph, lens profile off:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-TFJ9xsM/0/ab5ffda3/O/i-TFJ9xsM.jpg

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, stevegaskin said:

Thanks ramarren. Would the disparity vary much depending on focal length; I'm probably only going to use 28mm/35mm/50mm Leica lenses. Also, do you know the answer to the focus peaking question?

Thanks

Focus peaking is a useful tool, but not the cure-all that some people think it is
Basically it indicates the area of maximum (edge) contrast. That implies that it will work best with high contrast and shallow DOF. The optimum effect will be with high-quality long lenses and  macro. It is less useful with wideangle lenses and smaller apertures, as it will paint the whole image red. With medium focal lengths the effect may be less pronounced. Fortunately, the shorter the lens, the less the need. At focal lengths below 90 mm I prefer magnification. Which means that there is not much use for the focal lengths you prefer.

There is a learning curve in the use as well. For instance, one needs to get into the habit of "walking" the peaking through the image to get as much red in front as to the back of the subject. Picking up the peaking on lower contrast lenses - or subjects!-  may require a bit of training as well.

[stevegaskin]

38 minutes ago, ramarren said:

I had the M-D 262 and an SL. The M Adapter L allowed me to migrate my lenses back and forth between the two bodies and the FoVs remained constant since the formats are the same. When I sold the SL (over time after I retired I found I just wasn't using it enough to warrant all that value sitting on the shelf depreciating), I bought the CL because I still occasionally needed a TTL focusing/viewing camera and I much prefer the CL's user interface over the T/TL interface as well as the built-in EVF. At that point, switching the lenses back and forth between them became a tiny bit more problematic because if I wanted the FoV of a 35mm lens on the M-D but wanted the use of the CL's TTL viewing/focusing, I needed a 24mm lens. It's a minor thing, if you have the lenses already (as I did) but it makes it more likely that you'll forget and carry the wrong lens. 

That said, over the course of a year, I found my use of the M-D diminished and I was using the CL for everything, with no loss in quality to my photographs. It's not a lot smaller but it is a good bit lighter body, which helps when you're out in the field or walking about in the city doing street. I finally decided that the M-D had been obsoleted for my use by the "better" function of the CL viewfinder and sold the M-D body, and by that time I'd become completely accustomed to the correct focal lengths for the CL format anyway. 

So ... the larger format bodies do have an advantage for when you want wider field of view as you need less extremely short focal lengths, and the smaller format bodies have an advantage for when you want narrower FoV since you get that "1.5x crop factor" gain in reach with still light and fast lenses (135mm becomes like a 200mm lens on the M format, for example). For street with the CL, I mostly love the FoV and DoF provided by a 28mm lens ... almost identical to what you'd get with a 43mm lens on the M10 ... and 50mm when I'm looking to work with much tighter framing. My ancient 1972 generation  'Lux 35 v2 is a superb normal "50mm equivalent" on the CL. For wide, I like extremely wide and the Voigtländer HyperWide 10mm is more appealing to me than the (also very excellent) Leica 11-23mm, and about a third the price. 

So I'm now without an FF camera and I do love very very wide views ... but there's little real benefit to buying an M or other FF camera for the smallish difference. What's going to work better for me is to move up to MFDigital with a Hasselblad and their superb 21mm lens next: that'll will prove a wonderful complement to the CL. 

Sorry to rattle on a bit but when I hear people saying that they're about to move through the same sequence of expensive equipment purchases that I've been through, I hope that it's helpful to relate my own journey through this mess..  

G

 

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!

Leica CL + Voigtländer HyperWide 10mm f/5.6

Again, great information G and a lovely photo.   All of your points are very valid; my reason for looking at M10 digital is that I love the RF experience. I had an M9 which I swapped for a Q as I found the M9 slow to write files and the screen resolution poor; I then had the dreaded sensor problem (it was fixed by Leica).  The images from the Q were great but I missed the flexibility of different focal length, thus I switched to to the CL which I love.  The M10 will be a serious bit of self indulgence, so still trying to justify it.

[stevegaskin]

28 minutes ago, lct said:

Yes it does, see what Ramarren said above. Now if you intend to nail focus, peaking is not as accurate as focus magnification which is easier to trigger with the Leica adapter. 
Also the latter allows the camera to apply lens profiles automatically. Won't make obvious difference on 35mm or 50mm lenses but on wider ones, like 21mm below, distortion can be adjusted automatically this way. 

CL, M 21/3.4 asph, lens profile on:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-t9MpWtm/0/0bad8edc/O/i-t9MpWtm.jpg

CL, M 21/3.4 asph, lens profile off:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-TFJ9xsM/0/ab5ffda3/O/i-TFJ9xsM.jpg

Thank you

[stevegaskin]

18 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Focus peaking is a useful tool, but not the cure-all that some people think it is
Basically it indicates the area of maximum (edge) contrast. That implies that it will work best with high contrast and shallow DOF. The optimum effect will be with high-quality long lenses and  macro. It is less useful with wideangle lenses and smaller apertures, as it will paint the whole image red. With medium focal lengths the effect may be less pronounced. Fortunately, the shorter the lens, the less the need. At focal lengths below 90 mm I prefer magnification. Which means that there is not much use for the focal lengths you prefer.

There is a learning curve in the use as well. For instance, one needs to get into the habit of "walking" the peaking through the image to get as much red in front as to the back of the subject. Picking up the peaking on lower contrast lenses - or subjects!-  may require a bit of training as well.

I must practice more with magnification; thanks