Laeica M with Xpan lenses

[Kamyar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey  guys. 
Have you ever used Xpan lenses on an M or sl body?  Please share your experience with me.  I think it be an interesting result. 
🥂

Edited May 18, 2020 by Kamyar

[Advertisement]

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

[james.liam]

Does anyone even make such an adapter?

i know there’s a Hasselblad Xpan to XD adapter and Fotodiox Xpan-Fujufilm G. 

[adan]

There is an adapter to put XPan lenses on an SL/SL2 (Kipon brand). With electronic viewing, that probably make some sense.

A physical adapter to Leica M is probably possible, but there would be a large loss of functionality. Leica and the XPan don't use compatable rangefinder connections, and there are no compatable framelines except for the 90mm. Additionally, the M digital bodies are prone to flare from the inside of the camera (compared to the film cameras), so using a lens designed to shine light over an even larger format would just increase the odds of such flare.

I would only recommend using adapted XPan lenses on a Leica M to someone whose greatest pleasure in life is banging their head against concrete walls. It would be that kind of experience.

[a.noctilux]

I know Xpan lenses are great, but so "small aperture" wide open, I use the three 30/45/90 lenses on Xpan.

More than ten years ago, newly Xpan user I wanted the other way around M lenses to Xpan body adapter, to "gain" some F stops.

Never been able to find, only I understood that the flanges to film are too close, inside the Xpan body with M lenses : Xpan 34.27mm M 27.95mm (well after some sources 27.8-28.0).

 

Coming to Xpan lens to M adapter, it's such non-sense, that Andy is right with his comparition.

Not enough thickness to make adapter, largest numbers of other brands lenses with good adapters to play with M without the hussle of Xpan slow lenses.

[Guest]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb adan:

The M digital bodies are prone to flare from the inside of the camera (compared to the film cameras), so using a lens designed to shine light over an even larger format would just increase the odds of such flare.

I would only recommend using adapted XPan lenses on a Leica M to someone whose greatest pleasure in life is banging their head against concrete walls. It would be that kind of experience.

Absolutely new and exclusive info about M digital bodies, indeed!
Someone quoting it, and then another etc. ... add some Rockwell to this rumor

and it turns into an internet „fact“.

Lenses like: Nikon PC-E, Canon TC-E and Schneider PC-TS are not good for architecture photography due to internal flare from the larger image circle???

First ever head-banging info I read from Andy Piper in more than a decade, sorry to say.
 

I would think, that not using the periphery of wide-angle lenses, which were designed for film but without any compromises to be „fast“ makes for outstanding optical performance. 
It could well be that images with a 5.6/30mm lens on a SL2 are worth the experiment, if there is such an adapter.

Why SL and not M? Because the flange focal distance differs only slightly, so an X-pan lens -> M body can not be made.

Because the SL lens mount has a flange focal distance of 7.8mm less than M, and on a Nikon Z (or Hasselblad XCD) there would be even more place for such an adapter for Hasselblad X-pan 30mm or 45mm lenses.
 

Edited May 19, 2020 by tri

[james.liam]

Get a used X1D with a Hasselblad Xpan-to-X adapter and call it a day.

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, tri said:

Absolutely new and exclusive info about M digital bodies, indeed!
Someone quoting it, and then another etc. ... add some Rockwell to this rumor

and it turns into an internet „fact“.

Lenses like: Nikon PC-E, Canon TC-E and Schneider PC-TS are not good for architecture photography due to internal flare from the larger image circle???

Not rumor, unfortunately. Based on reproducable, empirical evidence, with a little additional observation and theory that explains the evidence.

1) My M10 produces strong directed flare patterns from light sources just outside the image area. Examples below with 90mm Elmarit-M, which occasionally produces soft veiled flare patches on all cameras, but nothing like this "spotlight effect" (left). And the occasional softer flare spots are more pronounced (right). The M10 makes an Elmarit-M almost as "flare prone" as a Tele-Elmarit-M.

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!

2) 90mm lenses with more optical vignetting and falloff (specifically, 90 Summicron-M (1980) and 90 Summarit-M f/2.5), are less prone to such flare on the M10. Because the image circle is "fading out" by a stop or more before it extends to the camera walls.

3) The M10 shutter chamber, here compared to an M7, has obvious structural differences that tend to promote glancing reflections and flare from the chamber sides and floor, if there is bright "image circle" spillover.

The floor has been raised much higher, and the walls have been squeezed in, to the extent they even impinge a bit on the shutter opening itself. Leica has "stolen space" from the shutter chamber, to squeeze the electronics into the M10's more compact volume. The tighter spacing promotes glancing reflections straight onto the sensor. Additionally, the M digital side walls are flat "mirrors," while in the film Ms, they are curved or domed, to fit around the shutter-curtain spools.

The M10 also lacks the sheet-metal light baffle (or "internal lens shade") inside the lens mount, which Leica (obviously aware of the potential for glancing flare from the insides of the shutter chamber), has installed in every film M since the M6. I don't know why that feature has been deleted: possibly because Leica determined that any effective baffle with the tighter construction would start to cause its own vignetting or cropping of the image; possibly they just no longer had the space available to mount one, or possibly to save money on a "disposable" digital.

It also appears the black coating inside the M10 shutter chamber may be less black" than in the M7 - although that may be a trick of the lighting.

As to T/S lenses. Since they are wide-angles, their light spill may be less telecentric and less prone to glancing reflections off the camera walls. Or it may simply be they are not commonly used in situations with bright light sources just outside the picture area.

[Guest]

Andy,

It is Leica‘s job to make a statement regarding your empirical observations.

It is no help that little old me observed no flare, because I did not put my succession of digital-Ms on a tripod and repeated the exact same shots with an analog M.

In case you did, could you show glare-free scans of the corresponding analog photos paired with the presented images?

FF digital M cameras are around for almost 11 years, and now this issue??

[Guest JMF]

On 5/18/2020 at 5:08 PM, Kamyar said:

Hey  guys. 
Have you ever used Xpan lenses on an M or sl body?  Please share your experience with me.  I think it be an interesting result. 
🥂

Hi,

I am using the Xpan lenses on the SL with the Kipon Xpan to L adapter. The 30 and 45mm without the center filter work fine as expected  .

The infinity is reached early on way before the 10m mark on the 30mm with this  adapter (un)calibrated on the safe side. 

Here is a shot taken with the 90mm:

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!

Emile et Rémy by JM__, on Flickr

Best, JM.

Edited May 21, 2020 by JMF

[Guest JMF]

On 5/19/2020 at 7:53 AM, tri said:

Absolutely new and exclusive info about M digital bodies, indeed!
Someone quoting it, and then another etc. ... add some Rockwell to this rumor

and it turns into an internet „fact“.

Lenses like: Nikon PC-E, Canon TC-E and Schneider PC-TS are not good for architecture photography due to internal flare from the larger image circle???

First ever head-banging info I read from Andy Piper in more than a decade, sorry to say.
 

I would think, that not using the periphery of wide-angle lenses, which were designed for film but without any compromises to be „fast“ makes for outstanding optical performance. 
It could well be that images with a 5.6/30mm lens on a SL2 are worth the experiment, if there is such an adapter.

Why SL and not M? Because the flange focal distance differs only slightly, so an X-pan lens -> M body can not be made.

Because the SL lens mount has a flange focal distance of 7.8mm less than M, and on a Nikon Z (or Hasselblad XCD) there would be even more place for such an adapter for Hasselblad X-pan 30mm or 45mm lenses.
 

BTW I have been using the Xpan lenses on the GFX50S as well:

Here are shots taken with the 30 Xpan f5.6 (no crop) :

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!

Untitled by JM__, on Flickr

Untitled by JM__, on Flickr

Untitled by JM__, on Flickr

Best, JM.

[Guest]

Oh, dear JMF, could we please see uncompressed images taken at infinity with the 30mm  in your flickr account ?!

This lens is compact and could make a nice set with the Elmar M 24mm and 21mm for architecture, because the various M 28mm lenses all have „character“, while an optically uncompromising lens of this focal length is hard to find. It could be in the planing for the SL mount, but it will be big and heavy. 

[Guest JMF]

2 hours ago, tri said:

Oh, dear JMF, could we please see uncompressed images taken at infinity with the 30mm  in your flickr account ?!

This lens is compact and could make a nice set with the Elmar M 24mm and 21mm for architecture, because the various M 28mm lenses all have „character“, while an optically uncompromising lens of this focal length is hard to find. It could be in the planing for the SL mount, but it will be big and heavy. 

PMed you.