Leica M-L adapter for CL...

[Driften]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been playing with a TTArtisan 35mm 1.4 and am thinking of branching out to M mount lens. I expect mostly Voigtlander lens, but could be vintage Leica glass at some point. If I'm not using 6 bit coded Leica than is there an advantage to paying for the Leica brand adapter? From what I can tell it changes to using a dial for the magnification instead of hitting the up arrow. But the arrow isn't an issue since I'm doing it on the TTArtisan. I guess the other advantage is popping up a list of some programmed lens profiles on turning it on? But I"m not sure the lens profiles line up very often to 3rd party lens to make that useful. 

If not the official adapter, what is the best 3rd party adapter? 

[Advertisement]

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

[tommonego@gmail.com]

I have a Leica adapter and a cheap Fleabay one, in use I don't notice a difference in the images, I have Leica lenses but they aren't coded. The Leica adapter is slightly tighter, you only notice this when putting the lens on the adapter. 

Is your TTArtisan 35 f1.4 the L mount version? I have one and I am feeling you get what you pay for. 

[ramarren]

If you are not working with lenses that include the six-bit code, and don't want to bother with choosing lens profiles for your lenses, then there is no difference between the Leica M Adapter L and third party mount adapter other than that the M Adapter L tells the body to use one of the control dials for magnification focus assist rather than the four-way controller.

The only other possible exception to this is that the M Adapter L seems to be manufactured to a slightly higher quality spec and preserves the accuracy of the focusing scale a little better than most third party mount adapters, at least from what I've seen. 

I considered the M Adapter L to be an essential accessory when I bought my CL since I had no intent of buying TL or SL lenses for the CL: I already owned a good stock of M and R mount lenses. The M Adapter L has only rarely been removed from the lens mount—only for cleaning the sensor. I stack the R Adapter M onto the M Adapter L when I'm using my R lenses. This has also allowed me to equip three of my older lenses with six-bit codes that work well with them so I get the benefit of automated lens profile corrections triggered by the lens fitted. 

G

[Driften]

3 hours ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

I have a Leica adapter and a cheap Fleabay one, in use I don't notice a difference in the images, I have Leica lenses but they aren't coded. The Leica adapter is slightly tighter, you only notice this when putting the lens on the adapter. 

Is your TTArtisan 35 f1.4 the L mount version? I have one and I am feeling you get what you pay for. 

It's the L mount version. So far it's not a bad lens, but it's going to make me sell my Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN. It is a lot smaller and lighter than any of my other L mount lens and at times that is important to me. The next lens I'm wanting is the Voigtlander Color Skopar 21mm f/4 pancake lens which will need the M to L adapter. It wouldn't be as elegant as the Leica Summinron-T 21mm f/2, but $420 is a lot easier to afford right now. A CL with a pancake lens is a lot easier to carry than my Q, just to have a camera with me.

Here's a pic from my TTartisan 35mm focused on his closed eyes it's very sharp there. Shot at f2, 1/125, ISO 400. 

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!

[Driften]

I found the Leica adapter used at the Leica Store Miami and decided to order it there. Slightly more than I've seen a couple other places but with free shipping and no tax it came out less.  Maybe I should have gone with a cheep adapter, but I can always sell it if needed. Also would be nice to have if I rent Leica M glass...

[tommonego@gmail.com]

If you don't mind the price the Leica adapter is the way to go. If you are looking into M lenses you may get a coded one.

My images from the L mount TTArtisans 35 are OK, my big gripe is the lens is not tight on the mount of the camera, I mean really loose. Does your shave the same issue?

 

[Driften]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

33 minutes ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

If you don't mind the price the Leica adapter is the way to go. If you are looking into M lenses you may get a coded one.

My images from the L mount TTArtisans 35 are OK, my big gripe is the lens is not tight on the mount of the camera, I mean really loose. Does your shave the same issue?

 

Mine fits the same as my Leica or Sigma lens. Guess you got a bad copy  

[jaapv]

Image magnification will not work by the thumb wheel, only the arrow keys, if a non-Leica adapter is used.

[Driften]

56 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Image magnification will not work by the thumb wheel, only the arrow keys, if a non-Leica adapter is used.

Right... that doesn't seem to be a big deal though. I'm already using the arrow keys to move what is magnified. I guess if I was taking landscape photos that wouldn't be the case. I'm still getting used to somewhat framing, magnifying the image to see the subject focus best and taking the shot. It seems like I loose track of the framing at that point. That said my test subjects have been pets. I can see it being different when I'm out doing more general photography. For that shooting I'm more concerned with light, shadow, and texture. That could be also more stopped down and less critical for focus... Guess I'll see how things go. Much easier on an autofocus lens, but this is a fun connection to shooting B&W film long before digital came about. I wonder what happened to that old Minolta SLR..

[ramarren]

3 hours ago, Driften said:

Right... that doesn't seem to be a big deal though. I'm already using the arrow keys to move what is magnified. I guess if I was taking landscape photos that wouldn't be the case. I'm still getting used to somewhat framing, magnifying the image to see the subject focus best and taking the shot. It seems like I loose track of the framing at that point. That said my test subjects have been pets. I can see it being different when I'm out doing more general photography. For that shooting I'm more concerned with light, shadow, and texture. That could be also more stopped down and less critical for focus... Guess I'll see how things go. Much easier on an autofocus lens, but this is a fun connection to shooting B&W film long before digital came about. I wonder what happened to that old Minolta SLR..

(bolded) Just tap the shutter release and you're back at the full, non-magnified image for proper framing. The magnified image section is for critical focusing.

I don't know why one would move the magnified section of the image around with the four-way controller when focusing manually unless you had the camera on a stand or tripod and didn't want to disturb the framing. It's so much easier—and faster—to just turn on magnification, target on center that which needs to be focused on, focus, then tap the shutter release to frame your photo, and make the exposure.

G

[jaapv]

On 9/6/2021 at 10:18 PM, Driften said:

Right... that doesn't seem to be a big deal though. ..

It is to me - I find the arrow keys highly impractical to use with the camera at my eye. I never touch them if I can avoid it.

[Driften]

3 hours ago, ramarren said:

(bolded) Just tap the shutter release and you're back at the full, non-magnified image for proper framing. The magnified image section is for critical focusing.

I don't know why one would move the magnified section of the image around with the four-way controller when focusing manually unless you had the camera on a stand or tripod and didn't want to disturb the framing. It's so much easier—and faster—to just turn on magnification, target on center that which needs to be focused on, focus, then tap the shutter release to frame your photo, and make the exposure.

G

If the item to be in critical focus is at one of the rule of thirds lines crossing and not the center of the image it's better to move the magnified area to focus there. Yes you could turn the camera to make that in the center to focus and move back, but the plane of focus may not be the same after reframing. It wouldn't matter at something like f/4, but at 1.2 or 1.4 close up that amount of movement can move it out of the thin depth of field. It's mostly an issue with portraits.... Hmmm.... on a range finder or old SLR where the focus aid is in the center I guess you wouldn't have a choice but focus and reframe, but the answer could also be stop down from open until the DOF is just wide enough for the difference. Maybe that's only half a stop or something. 

I expect I'm just trying to hard.

[lct]

Image magnification by the thumb wheel is by far the best advantage of the Leica adapter for me. I never chimp to focus though.

[lct]

9 hours ago, Driften said:

If the item to be in critical focus is at one of the rule of thirds lines crossing and not the center of the image it's better to move the magnified area to focus there. Yes you could turn the camera to make that in the center to focus and move back, but the plane of focus may not be the same after reframing. It wouldn't matter at something like f/4, but at 1.2 or 1.4 close up that amount of movement can move it out of the thin depth of field. It's mostly an issue with portraits.... Hmmm.... on a range finder or old SLR where the focus aid is in the center I guess you wouldn't have a choice but focus and reframe, but the answer could also be stop down from open until the DOF is just wide enough for the difference. Maybe that's only half a stop or something. 

I expect I'm just trying to hard.

Focus peaking can be useful too. Do you disable it when you do image magnification? Just curious.

[ramarren]

10 hours ago, Driften said:

If the item to be in critical focus is at one of the rule of thirds lines crossing and not the center of the image it's better to move the magnified area to focus there. Yes you could turn the camera to make that in the center to focus and move back, but the plane of focus may not be the same after reframing. It wouldn't matter at something like f/4, but at 1.2 or 1.4 close up that amount of movement can move it out of the thin depth of field. It's mostly an issue with portraits.... Hmmm.... on a range finder or old SLR where the focus aid is in the center I guess you wouldn't have a choice but focus and reframe, but the answer could also be stop down from open until the DOF is just wide enough for the difference. Maybe that's only half a stop or something. 

I expect I'm just trying to hard.

If you're shooting hand held, virtually no amount of off-center focus drift is going to matter much unless you're so close to the subject that it would be mostly inappropriate for a portrait shot due to foreshortening distortions anyway, and critical focus when hand-held in such circumstances is always degraded by camera movement anyway. I'm not a participant in the "everything must be exposed at f/1.2" sweepstakes ... I'm nearly always shooting at f/4 to f/5.6 on APS-C format unless light levels are really, really low ... so the razor-thin DoF issues are also irrelevant to me. 

So these concerns, while valid in certain circumstances and situations, just really don't play out as a big issue for most of my photography. If they do for you, well, I still think if you're going to be that critical you should use a tripod or other camera support, and then moving the magnified focus area around to suit the subject without disturbing the framing does work well.

And yeah: I get some really, really sharp photos with my 1950s Kodak Retina II/IIIc cameras—or my digital Ms, in the past—wide open and at close distances ... and have never thought once about the fact that I can only use the rangefinder in the center of the view...

G

[Driften]

2 hours ago, lct said:

Focus peaking can be useful too. Do you disable it when you do image magnification? Just curious.

I always use focus peaking... I think it really helps manual focus even when magnified.

[Driften]

34 minutes ago, ramarren said:

If you're shooting hand held, virtually no amount of off-center focus drift is going to matter much unless you're so close to the subject that it would be mostly inappropriate for a portrait shot due to foreshortening distortions anyway, and critical focus when hand-held in such circumstances is always degraded by camera movement anyway. I'm not a participant in the "everything must be exposed at f/1.2" sweepstakes ... I'm nearly always shooting at f/4 to f/5.6 on APS-C format unless light levels are really, really low ... so the razor-thin DoF issues are also irrelevant to me. 

So these concerns, while valid in certain circumstances and situations, just really don't play out as a big issue for most of my photography. If they do for you, well, I still think if you're going to be that critical you should use a tripod or other camera support, and then moving the magnified focus area around to suit the subject without disturbing the framing does work well.

And yeah: I get some really, really sharp photos with my 1950s Kodak Retina II/IIIc cameras—or my digital Ms, in the past—wide open and at close distances ... and have never thought once about the fact that I can only use the rangefinder in the center of the view...

G

I expect I'm trying too hard during these tests of the new lens. I need to get outside and do some other types of photos... 

[lct]

37 minutes ago, Driften said:

I always use focus peaking... I think it really helps manual focus even when magnified.

+1. I don't quite see where your problem comes from then. You focus at working aperture i guess and you don't have to recompose do you. Or are you using soft lenses whose contrast is not high enough possibly?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Driften]

3 hours ago, lct said:

+1. I don't quite see where your problem comes from then. You focus at working aperture i guess and you don't have to recompose do you. Or are you using soft lenses whose contrast is not high enough possibly?

If it's a wide scene and you can focus without using the magnify, no problem. If a point of critical focus is in the center where it defaults to magnify, then focus and shoot. If I have to move the magnified area for a critical focus when leaving that, often I've moved the framing and have to reframe, or could just shoot and adjust in post. It's not really a problem, just a work flow to get used to. It could be this one lens and the subjects I've tested so far doesn't provide the micro-contrast to just focus peak with out magnifying, or I'm getting lost in trying to be perfect when that doesn't always matter in making something creative.

Part of the idea of a manual focus lens for me is to slow down and enjoy using one, and having some lens that are smaller and lighter than modern L mount lens. So no problem just learning and adapting.

[ramarren]

I use manual focus lenses only with my CL ... M and R mount ... I've not bought any TL lenses, and I sold my SL lenses when I sold the SL. I don't find it any faster or slower than shooting with an autofocus lens. 

I use peaking when I'm not going for critical focus: Peaking lets you see the focus zone quickly and clearly. Peaking was designed first for cine camera use, where critical focus is irrelevant since your subject is in motion. It's a great quick-aid to getting focus close quickly, not critical focusing. I turn it off when doing slow, studied work and going for precise critical focus. 

Focus magnification is the tool to use for critical focusing: It lets you see the specific sharpness in the critical focus plane as you move the focus ring and see the focus transition from out to in to out again. I use it all the time with wide lenses where it is difficult to discern focus transitions due to the great inherent DoF. It is less necessary with normal and longer focal length lenses since the transitions become easier to see clearly; as focal length grows even longer, it can actually decrease the ability to see focus transitions due to camera movement while working the focus ring interacting poorly with the EVF refresh rate. The problem become accentuated in low light conditions when the camera needs to collect several frames worth of light before it can refresh the EVF, leading to EVF jitter. 

How fast or how slow to work I find is a matter of intent and self discipline. I know I get much better photographs when I stop just looking and pressing the shutter release: I have to look, think (observe and recognize what my intent with a particular scene or subject might be), make adjustments to the camera to optimize that intent, and then press the shutter release. Whether I'm using an AF system or zone focusing, using peaking or magnification—or not, or whatever, doesn't really matter. The critical point of slowing down is the thinking part which has to come from within, and is not imposed by whatever the equipment requires me to do.

As example, I had my lovely old 1952 Voigtländer Perkeo II out for a walk the other day. The workflow on this camera is wind on the film, scale focus only so set a distance, set an aperture to cover the required DoF, set the matching shutter time (before cocking the shutter because of the old Synchro-Compur shutter), cock the shutter, frame and release the shutter. I found I made 12 good exposures, and quickly (the entire roll), but for one thing: in every case, I was not thinking about how level the camera was and, as a result, every frame but one is slightly rotated to the left (a quirk of my eye always causes this effect if I'm not thinking enough to correct it...).  

G