wlaidlaw Posted August 12, 2007 Share #1 Posted August 12, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Could anyone advise me if the spacing and alignment of the supplementary lenses of spectacles lenses (e.g. Elmarit 135/2.8) is correct for the M8 and is there any reason they should not work? Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 12, 2007 Posted August 12, 2007 Hi wlaidlaw, Take a look here M8 & Spectacles Lenses. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Shootist Posted August 12, 2007 Share #2 Posted August 12, 2007 There is NO reason they SHOULD NOT work. Having said that I have had 3 135/2.8 lenses, 2 of the first version and 1 of the second. With all of them the verticle alignment has been off and ALL backfocused. I have since sold one of the first versions and the other is at Solms for adjustment and CLA (and I must add that for what Leica is charging me it BETTER BE RIGHT when it returns. Much more then the lens is really worth but it is worth nothing to me, or anyone else, the way it was). The second version I have is now way off in every respect (yes I tried to adjust the verticle alignment myself). That lens is going to DAG for adjustment as the lens LOOKS brand new (Not a mark on it anywhere). The one reason I sent the first version model to Leica AG is with this version you can put it on and take it off the M8 with the grip base installed on the camera. The eyes are bigger on the version 2 model and the only way to put it on or take it off is to remove the grip base or use the standard base. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted August 12, 2007 Share #3 Posted August 12, 2007 The goggles for the 90 Macro I'm testing seem fine. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted August 12, 2007 Author Share #4 Posted August 12, 2007 I have been offered a number of these 135's. One is a Canadian made one and looks immaculate but I am meeeting a bit of a language barrier on my query about balsam separation, which is a frequent problem with the 135's. One of the other ones I am being offered in the UK has declared balsam separartion but as a consequence, is at a good price. I wonder if I am better taking the one with balsam separation and sending it to Malcolm Taylor to do the whole shooting match - clean, re-glue, back-focus and vertical alignment. At least I know what I would be getting then - perfection. I might give him a ring tomorrow and ask what the approx price of a total rebuild on a 135/2.8 would be. The dealer selling the separated lens, knows Malcolm and I might ask them to speak to each other. Am I right in thinking that all the Canadian ones are generation 2? Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchell Posted August 12, 2007 Share #5 Posted August 12, 2007 Could you explain what balsam separation is? Thanks, Mitchell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted August 12, 2007 Share #6 Posted August 12, 2007 Wilson ALL 135/2.8's with eye are made in Canada, first and second version (ALL). Yes please explain balsam separation? Is this the way the eye glass is glued together? None of the ones I have seen have this, IE they all seemed to have good eye glass. NOTE that the first version eye glass is cemented into the housing. The glass in the second version is held inplace by a spring system and or a locking plate and screws. The way to tell first version from second is the first version has segmented recesses around the focusing ring and the second version doesn't. It is just a full ring with knurls. Also the first version has a 2 step built in lens hood and the second has a one piece built in hood. The first version need a series 7 filter and retaining ring and or a 54mm to 55mm adapter and the second version takes a 55mm filter natively. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted August 12, 2007 Author Share #7 Posted August 12, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Could you explain what balsam separation is? Thanks, Mitchell Mitchell, When you have a lens doublet or triplet, they are glued together with a substance called Canada Balsam. It is invisible when dry and has a refractive index near to that of optical glass of 1.55. The main problem with it is it is hygroscopic and being an organic substance, can form a food for fungus spores which then grow on it. When this happens, it pushes the lens elements apart and the air gap between the lens elements, then alter the properties of the overall lens. I have always been surprised that a newer synthetic substance has not replaced it, which would not be subject to this deterioration. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted August 12, 2007 Author Share #8 Posted August 12, 2007 Wilson ALL 135/2.8's with eye are made in Canada, first and second version (ALL). Yes please explain balsam separation? Is this the way the eye glass is glued together? None of the ones I have seen have this, IE they all seemed to have good eye glass. NOTE that the first version eye glass is cemented into the housing. The glass in the second version is held inplace by a spring system and or a locking plate and screws. The way to tell first version from second is the first version has segmented recesses around the focusing ring and the second version doesn't. It is just a full ring with knurls. Also the first version has a 2 step built in lens hood and the second has a one piece built in hood. The first version need a series 7 filter and retaining ring and or a 54mm to 55mm adapter and the second version takes a 55mm filter natively. Ed, Thanks for the explanation. Looking at the pictures, I am being offered two V2 and one V1 lens. I think the declared Balsam separation is in the lens itself not the spectacles. In view of the filter difficulties, I would only consider a V2. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted August 12, 2007 Share #9 Posted August 12, 2007 Ed, Thanks for the explanation. Looking at the pictures, I am being offered two V2 and one V1 lens. I think the declared Balsam separation is in the lens itself not the spectacles. In view of the filter difficulties, I would only consider a V2. Wilson That's a different story then. I personally would stay away from that lens. Not that it wouldn't happen to the others at some point. If given the choice today, I already owned a first version, I'd go for the second version. that is why I bought the third unit I've had, because it was a second version. Some say they are better then the first. I really couldn't tell because of the backfocus and verticle alignment problems with all of them. Just what is the price on them? If it's over $400 (US) look for a used current f/3.4 APO version. I had a chance to buy one for $1100 but passed on it as I, at that time, had 3 f/2.8 units. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted August 12, 2007 Author Share #10 Posted August 12, 2007 That's a different story then. I personally would stay away from that lens. Not that it wouldn't happen to the others at some point. If given the choice today, I already owned a first version, I'd go for the second version. that is why I bought the third unit I've had, because it was a second version. Some say they are better then the first. I really couldn't tell because of the backfocus and verticle alignment problems with all of them. Just what is the price on them? If it's over $400 (US) look for a used current f/3.4 APO version. I had a chance to buy one for $1100 but passed on it as I, at that time, had 3 f/2.8 units. Ed, They are about $400. One of the attractions of these was the spectacles. I can JUST about focus the 90/2.8 well and I thought the 135 without spectacles would a step too far. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 13, 2007 Share #11 Posted August 13, 2007 Ed-- Wasn't version 2 also the one in which Leica started using the same formula as the 135/2.8 R? Or was there also a third version? Wilson-- Remember that with the 135/2.8, the extra protrusion of the goggles is more prone to getting knocked out of alignment. I think that's one reason that the later lens had the more easily adjustable goggles that Ed mentioned. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted August 13, 2007 Share #12 Posted August 13, 2007 Both versions were optically identical with the two consecutive R versions, though the R and the M versions may not have done the switch at the same time. Also, there seem to exist Elmarit-M lenses with the second mount (continuously knurled, not scalloped focusing ring, E55 filter mount, no series filter retaining ring) but with the first optical formula. Mine, #2789xxx, has perfect glass and aligning and focuses perfectly well both at infinity and at close focus. This may well be a case of first optical formula, second version mount, and it is said that this optical formula has somewhat lower contrast at 2.8 (though they are equal from f:4), but I have certainly nothing to complain about. The only drawbacks are mechanical: it is a heavy lens, and the spectacles makes it difficult to fit it into a normal camera bag. The old man from the Age of the 135mm Lens Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterlenz Posted August 13, 2007 Share #13 Posted August 13, 2007 Could anyone advise me if the spacing and alignment of the supplementary lenses of spectacles lenses (e.g. Elmarit 135/2.8) is correct for the M8 and is there any reason they should not work? Wilson Works perfectly; the magnification results in near 1:1. One sees slightly more in finder than what the lens takes in, i.e., a bit around the 90mm framelines (which are now 135mm framelines!). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 13, 2007 Share #14 Posted August 13, 2007 Lars--thanks for the info! --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted August 29, 2007 Author Share #15 Posted August 29, 2007 I decided the 135/2.8 with spectacles was just too big and too weird. Every one I found needed rebuilding, although Malcolm Taylor had one which the price would have included a rebuild. I have ended up getting a 21 year old but brand new and unused Tele-Elmar-M 135/4. It was still in its sealed plastic bag and all packed in yellowing foam rubber in the leather case. I felt guilty putting the first mounting mark on the pristine bayonet. The only downsides of the lens is that it brings up the 24/35 frame lines rather than the 28/90 and it has the older reversible hood rather than the neater slide out one of the later version. I am looking forward to using it. As a rough guide, if you mentally double the size of the VF patch, it covers about that area. I really needed it yesterday, taking pictures of all my kids plus their friends, white water rafting down the Verdon but it did not arrive until this morning, so I had to make do with the Elmarit-M 90/2.8. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/30905-m8-spectacles-lenses/?do=findComment&comment=341240'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 29, 2007 Share #16 Posted August 29, 2007 You can bring up the 90 mm framelines, Wilson. Just push the lens release button and rotate the lens a few dergrees further to its stop. Focussing will stay correct, you cannot force anything, but you will bring up the 90mm framelines, which are surprisingly correct for the 135. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted August 29, 2007 Author Share #17 Posted August 29, 2007 You can bring up the 90 mm framelines, Wilson. Just push the lens release button and rotate the lens a few dergrees further to its stop. Focussing will stay correct, you cannot force anything, but you will bring up the 90mm framelines, which are surprisingly correct for the 135. Jaap, Thank you for that hint - it makes life just that bit easier. As you say, at infinity I think the frame lines are more accurate for 135 than for 90mm. Do you think the frame changing to 28/90 beyond the latch detent is serendipity or a design feature? Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 29, 2007 Share #18 Posted August 29, 2007 Now you're asking me to read the minds of German Gnomes - I always think of Leica as some kind of Wagnerian workshop tha mere mortals cannot fathom....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted August 29, 2007 Share #19 Posted August 29, 2007 But what is the music playing on their P.A.? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted August 29, 2007 Share #20 Posted August 29, 2007 Jaap, Thank you for that hint - it makes life just that bit easier. As you say, at infinity I think the frame lines are more accurate for 135 than for 90mm. Do you think the frame changing to 28/90 beyond the latch detent is serendipity or a design feature? Wilson Wilson the reason that lens bring up the 24/35 lines is because that frameline position was used for the 135mm lens on M's that didn't have 35mm framelines or combined them with the 135. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.