M to L Adapter, What are you using?

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK I made a mistake. I just checked it. 

Lastest firmwares seem to allow us to use any dumb adapter. When using a dumb one, you got access to M and R lenses list. It was not the case with earlier version of FW. Glad that Leica let us use any adapter. 

However, when you are using official M-Adpater-L without R-Adapter-M, you will not get access to R lenses menu ! Only the M one. But add the R-Adapter-L, the R menu shows up. 

So if you want cheaper, but high quality adapter and do not need, 6-bit coding nor ROM reader. Just buy Novoflex adapters. But keep in mind, that Leica adapters are way better built. 

 

 

 

[dfdann]

I own both the Leica L to M and a Novaflex L to Nikon adapter. The Novaflex while adaquate is definitely not of same quality. Why spend thousands of dollars for a camera and lenses then go cheap on adapter?
Dan

[cp995]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb dfdann:

I own both the Leica L to M and a Novaflex L to Nikon adapter. The Novaflex while adaquate is definitely not of same quality...

Some facts please

[lct]

8 hours ago, nicci78 said:

OK I made a mistake. I just checked it. 

Lastest firmwares seem to allow us to use any dumb adapter. When using a dumb one, you got access to M and R lenses list. It was not the case with earlier version of FW. Glad that Leica let us use any adapter. 

However, when you are using official M-Adpater-L without R-Adapter-M, you will not get access to R lenses menu ! Only the M one. But add the R-Adapter-L, the R menu shows up. 

So if you want cheaper, but high quality adapter and do not need, 6-bit coding nor ROM reader. Just buy Novoflex adapters. But keep in mind, that Leica adapters are way better built. 

You were not that wrong i suspect . Just checked out with a DIY passive adapter, in fact a Leica adapter with a piece of tape stuck on the electric contacts. This way, one can choose a lens profile through the menu as i suspected. Problem is it won't change anything to the pic which looks totally identical when removing opcodes through DMG Cleaner. So it seems that you were right when you said that without Leica adapter "you will not have software correction at all".

[jaapv]

Which begs the question whether software correction is needed or even available for all M lenses. 

[ramarren]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

Which begs the question whether software correction is needed or even available for all M lenses. 

I have found that Leica's lens profiles definitely makes a difference for some lenses. The difference is subtle for most, pronounced for a few, and impossible to detect with the eye (but measurable) for others. 

I see no point to using Leica lenses without the lens profile that Leica supplied for them. With lenses for which no lens profile was offered, well, sure: I'll correct their output myself if I deem it to need correction.

A couple of hundred dollars isn't necessarily trivial money, but you only need to buy ONE M Adapter L and maybe ONE R Adapter M for the CL, and use it with all the lenses you have, or might purchase in the future. Given that you're already spending near to $3000 for the body, a couple of hundred dollars to get the best lens mount adapter for Leica lenses seems a sensible expenditure. I'm all for being frugal if there's no value add, but there is definitely a value add. 

G

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I found the Leica R adapter - which is unreasonably and crazily expensive, BTW- unnecessary. In general, R lenses need less corrections than M lenses. Any R to  M adapter on the Leica L-M adapter will do. I am not so sure that I am happy with digitally correcting pure optical designs. Yes, some residual errors can be removed, but there is a real danger of editing out the character, making for blandness.

[ramarren]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

I found the Leica R adapter - which is unreasonably and crazily expensive, BTW- unnecessary. In general, R lenses need less corrections than M lenses. Any R to  M adapter on the Leica L-M adapter will do. I am not so sure that I am happy with digitally correcting pure optical designs. Yes, some residual errors can be removed, but there is a real danger of editing out the character, making for blandness.

I've found the lens profiles for the Super-Elmar-R 15mm, Summilux-R 50mm, and Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm are worth having, in particular: even on the APS-C format they improve the rendering fidelity. I see visible effects of the profiles with the Elmarit-R 28mm and Summicron-R 90mm as well, very little with the Macro-Elmar-R 100mm, Elmarit-R 135mm, or Elmar-R 180mm. All of these lenses except for the 100mm are three-cam generation versions; it is a one-cam generation version.

Please notice my use of the term "rendering fidelity." My observation of Leica lens profiles is that they are intended to do a rather different thing from the lens profiles on Micro-FourThirds and other systems. In those systems (and in later Leica systems like the TL and SL lens lines), the digital correction of lens rendering is part of the design of the lenses from the beginning, allowing more freedom in lens design for compactness, performance, and price while producing high quality results. At least with the legacy lenses in Leica's portfolio of lens profiles, the intent of the lens profiles seems to be to retain the originally intended lens rendering characteristics, not just correct out all the aberrations that make up a lens's character. I've tested this notion by shooting photo pairs of various target subjects using both film and digital ... a couple of my older M lenses (for instance, the Summilux 35mm f/1.4 circa 1972) with both the Leica M-P 240/M-D 262 and the Leica M4-2, and R-lenses (all of them were film era lenses, no ROM) with both Leicaflex SL and Leica SL. The result is a very high fidelity match of all the lens character and aberrations in the final result between the film capture and the sensor capture, without image issues added on top by the sensor as so often happens with older lenses used on digital cameras in other systems.

The point of the Leica lens profiles, I deduce from that, is to retain the character of the original lens design regardless of which body/sensor the lens is used with and guarantee a high fidelity transfer of their rendering qualities when used with digital capture. This is why they're really only germaine to the use of Leica lenses ... Leica didn't design third party lenses and it isn't their place to say what those lenses ought to render like. 

I considered the R Adapter L when I had the SL body, because there were circumstances with longer focal lengths and with high-magnification macro where some vignetting intruded due to the small diameter of the M-mount bayonet flange; stacking the R Adapter M exacerbated this problem. But I don't own any ROM-equipped R lenses, so that part of the R Adapter L isn't useful to me, and those instances where vignetting was evident were few enough I didn't see the point of spending that amount of money to eliminate it. (The R Adapter M also has an excellent, removable, and not obnoxiously large tripod mounting foot that comes with it, which I find very useful and use all the time.) On the APS-C format with the CL, none of the vignetting issues appear, so I use the R Adapter M stacked onto the M Adapter L without need for anything more, and manually assign the correct R lens profile (actually, I have user profiles set up in the CL for my most-used combinations, so it's just a matter of choosing which of those to use when I fit a lens). 

G

[nicci78]

You really need the R-Adapter-L if you plan to use R zooms with ROM. The ROM will tell the camera the real focal length. Enabling proper Auto ISO and IBIS functionality. 
 

For SL/SL2 user and longer than 180mm, you will also need the R-Adapter-L to avoid the vignetting effect. 
 

The R-Adapter-L will also give us a very sturdy and clever tripod foot. It is removable at a glance without any tool. 
The R-Adapter-M tripod foot is quite nice , but it requires a hex key to remove it. So I tend to left it on permanently. 
 

One missed opportunity for both R-Adapters. Why haven’t they fit a secondary mounting point for the tripod foot ? Sparing us the expense and the inconvenience of an L-plate. 
 

Is it too much to ask for rotating tripod foot ? 

Edited June 5, 2020 by nicci78

[jaapv]

err... What IBIS? - The CL has none and the lenses are manual non-O.I.S.

[nicci78]

Just for SL2. And I hope that future CL2 will have IBIS too. 

[ramarren]

I'll never need an R Adapter L for R zooms because I'll never buy an R zoom ... don't like zooms in the first place, see no point to spending the money for something I'd never use. Don't really need IBIS compatibility either: I tend to use a tripod when I need to stabilize the camera securely. 

An adapter with a rotating tripod mount would be nice (I have that with my Hasselblad XV Adapter and XH Bracket) but I like the compactness of the R Adapter M's tripod foot (and don't care that I need a hex key to fit or remove it). I have a universal L-bracket which has an Arca-Swiss mounting clamp to secure the camera already, turns out to be useful for a lot of things, so the lack of rotation on the mount adapter's tripod foot really doesn't inconvenience me. 

Enough chit-chat. I think I'll go ride my bicycle.

G

[Marckyokay]

Has anyone ever tried one of those 7Artisans or TTArtisan M lens to L mount adapters? (They seem to be the same, just different branding.)
I quite like the shape of them and wonder if they are any good...

[Boojay]

33 minutes ago, Marckyokay said:

Has anyone ever tried one of those 7Artisans or TTArtisan M lens to L mount adapters? (They seem to be the same, just different branding.)
I quite like the shape of them and wonder if they are any good...

See post #9 of this thread.  I have the 7 Artisans close focus M-L adaptor, it works just fine.

 

 

[Marckyokay]

31 minutes ago, Boojay said:

See post #9 of this thread.  I have the 7 Artisans close focus M-L adaptor, it works just fine.

 

 

Thanks. I wasn't aware the standard M-L adapter is the same as the close focus? Are they the same? So 7Artisans M-L adapter actually lets us focus closer? It sure doesn't look like that, if I use an M lens that focuses to 0,7m how would the 7artisan M to L adapter help with focussing closer? 
Are we speaking of the same adapter?
These?
https://7artisans.co.uk/collections/leica-lens/products/leica-m-mount-adapters

Edited June 11, 2020 by Marckyokay

[Boojay]

14 minutes ago, Marckyokay said:

Thanks. I wasn't aware the standard M-L adapter is the same as the close focus? Are they the same? So 7Artisans M-L adapter actually lets us focus closer? It sure doesn't look like that, if I use an M lens that focuses to 0,7m how would the 7artisan M to L adapter help with focussing closer? 
Are we speaking of the same adapter?
These?
https://7artisans.co.uk/collections/leica-lens/products/leica-m-mount-adapters

No sorry, they make the standard adaptor (as above) and also the close focus adaptor, which is the one I have

https://www.amazon.co.uk/7artisans-Adapter-Converter-M-Mount-Cameras/dp/B08614FJ3M/ref=psdc_10658611_t2_B07VCW6L1M

Build quality is good and I have used it on both the CL and SL.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Boojay

[Marckyokay]

13 minutes ago, Boojay said:

No sorry, they make the standard adaptor (as above) and also the close focus adaptor, which is the one I have

https://www.amazon.co.uk/7artisans-Adapter-Converter-M-Mount-Cameras/dp/B08614FJ3M/ref=psdc_10658611_t2_B07VCW6L1M

Build quality is good and I have used it on both the CL and SL.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh wow! I have never seen that one!

I'm still interested to hear any opinion on the standard one. 
But good to know they have this close focus version and that you're happy with it!

[oldwino]

5 hours ago, Marckyokay said:

Oh wow! I have never seen that one!

I'm still interested to hear any opinion on the standard one. 
But good to know they have this close focus version and that you're happy with it!

Close focus is the way to go. It will change your life. 

[sere]

Hi,

I bring up this topic again because I am interested in getting a 50mm manual lens for my Leica CL, not sure if it will be the Voigtlander APO-Lanthar f/2 or the Nokton f1.2 yet (even though I am very intrigued by the Lanthar, as I've heard wonderful things about it).

It is the very first manual lens I get for the CL (I own the camera since a couple of months and I am using it just with the Leica 23mm f2), so I don't own an M to L adapter and I must get it: I've read in this topic that a third part adapter will not transmit lens info to the camera body, but as I understood neither the VM APO Lanthar nor the Nokton have the 6-bit coding to transmit the info anyway... is it correct? In this case I could get the Novoflex adapter.

(P.S. If you also have any suggestion about these two lenses, you're welcome of course!)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[lct]

The interest of VM and ZM lenses is they have a groove in the flange for pen coding. I have no experience with the ones your quoting though. If they are not too old they should have that groove but i would ask the seller to be sure.