M lenses and minimum Focusing distance

[fursan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do/Would/Should one use leica or other M mount lenses at their minimum focusing

distance?

 

I tend to do this a lot and was wondering if this is not recommended. If I should avoid

this what is the general distance ( from the min. stated ) should one be at?

 

Regards.

[Advertisement]

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

[giordano]

It's best to avoid working at the minimum focusing distance. Failing that, be sure to return the lens to infinity between shots. This is because when focused close the lens protrudes farther from the body and is more vulnerable. Of course this does not apply to internal-focus lenses.

[fursan]

It's best to avoid working at the minimum focusing distance. Failing that, be sure to return the lens to infinity between shots. This is because when focused close the lens protrudes farther from the body and is more vulnerable. Of course this does not apply to internal-focus lenses.

 

John, thanks for reply. Any fall of in lens performance, I should be aware of?

[lct]

Do/Would/Should one use leica or other M mount lenses at their minimum focusing distance...

No problem AFAIK if you don't shoot closer than the minimum *engraved* shooting distance (0.7m typically) otherwise you could get blurred results if you focus with the rangefinder.

[carstenw]

Not all lenses are equally good up close. The best ones are the 50 Lux Asph and 75 Cron Asph, which have floating elements, as well as the 90 Macro, which is of course designed for it. Various other lenses are not as strong. If you shoot a lot up close, I would run a few test shots through the camera at that distance, on a tripod and see if you are happy with the results. Most likely they will be fine, but I think it is better to know, so you can stop thinking about it.

 

Good grief, I just passed 3000 posts. I've gotta get away from this forum!

[fursan]

No problem AFAIK if you don't shoot closer than the minimum *engraved* shooting distance (0.7m typically) otherwise you could get blurred results if you focus with the rangefinder.

 

Thank you.

[fursan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not all lenses are equally good up close. The best ones are the 50 Lux Asph and 75 Cron Asph, which have floating elements, as well as the 90 Macro, which is of course designed for it. Various other lenses are not as strong. If you shoot a lot up close, I would run a few test shots through the camera at that distance, on a tripod and see if you are happy with the results. Most likely they will be fine, but I think it is better to know, so you can stop thinking about it.

 

Good grief, I just passed 3000 posts. I've gotta get away from this forum!

 

Thanks Carsten. thats a lot of typing!

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Not all lenses are equally good up close. The best ones are the 50 Lux Asph and 75 Cron Asph, which have floating elements, as well as the 90 Macro, which is of course designed for it. Various other lenses are not as strong. If you shoot a lot up close, I would run a few test shots through the camera at that distance, on a tripod and see if you are happy with the results. Most likely they will be fine, but I think it is better to know, so you can stop thinking about it.

 

Good grief, I just passed 3000 posts. I've gotta get away from this forum!

 

 

Your half way there Carsten, Happy 3k and get out for some beers. i would invite you over for some pork ribs BBQ than slow cooked in sauce and beer , corn on the cob, some caprese salad and such but i am sure 113 degrees after 32 days is not very appealing to you , even the snakes head for the high country. Alright beer and pool. BYE

[fursan]

Your half way there Carsten, Happy 3k and get out for some beers. i would invite you over for some pork ribs BBQ than slow cooked in sauce and beer , corn on the cob, some caprese salad and such but i am sure 113 degrees after 32 days is not very appealing to you , even the snakes head for the high country. Alright beer and pool. BYE

 

Guy, you are over 6K with carsten just over 3K. That sure is a lot of words. maybe

we could compile all these into a M8 faq?

[carstenw]

In my case, more like throw 2/3 away

 

Guy, I'd take you up on the beer, bbq and pool if I were closer. Given the weather we have been having here, I would even enjoy the heat

[adan]

I use practically all of my M lenses at minimum focus fairly regularly and usually like the results at least as much as at longer distances.

 

However, it is documented that certain lenses show more decline in performance close-up than others. I can't give a full catalog of which are better and which are worse in this regard - something like Erwin Puts' Leica Lens Compendium would be a better source covering the dozens of lens designs built over the years.

 

Frankly, at close distances (.7m - 1.0 m), my 50 'cron has consistently outperformed the 50 'lux ASPH at 1.4 or 2 and often tied the 75 'cron. IMHO the floating elements of the last two are there not to make their closeup performance especially good - but simply better than it would have been otherwise. (Which is not to take away from their superb performance at longer ranges, or how they compare to their predecessors).

 

There are two aspects of the close range that can cause trouble, though. First is the extremely limited DOF of lenses 50 and longer, and the limits of an RF focus system. The 90 or 75 APOs may perform well at close range - but it can be very hard to capture that performance consistently.

 

Also, as alluded to, some lenses (mostly 50 crons, IMHE) disconnect from the RF cam before they reach the focus-ring stop, so there may be focus problems (but not optical problems) in that last couple of mms beyond the closest distance marked on the lens. My current lenses don't show this problem, but I have seen it occur.

 

The real answer is - if you shoot closeup and enjoy the results - do it. Theoretical concerns are always trumped by actual pictures.

 

And, as Robert Capa said: "If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough."

[lars_bergquist]

––––––––––––––––––

And, as Robert Capa said: "If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough."

 

Yes, and the last close-up did finally kill him.

 

But seriously, don't photograph any person at a closer distance than about 2m/7ft if you want to remain friends with him, or especially, her. You will get strange facial proportions. They may be true, in a sense – this is how the central perspective works – but it is not flattering. You can go closer with children, especially infants, as their faces are so small (no great distance between the nose and the ears).

 

The old man from the Age of Les Demoiselles d'Avignon

[adan]

Actually, if RC had stayed closer in the footsteps of the troops he was traveling with, he might have survived a little longer. Instead, he stepped off the road to change his angle of view - et pouf! - landmine!

 

I think the original question was related more to whether the optics held up at close distances, rather than the aesthetics.

 

But, in any case, I can only say that if I had followed your "2-meter" rule, Lars, I would never have graduated from college with my photo major, nor been hired for any of the jobs in my 30-year-and-counting career, nor won any of the awards I've received.

 

Well over 90% of the best shots in my portfolio (mostly people) ove the years were made in the range below 2 meters. Were my subjects "flattered" or otherwise? - I really don't care. Although I have received far more orders for prints than i have complaints...

[lars_bergquist]

There is no accounting for taste. Perspective is in the eye of the beholder. We have had two periods when strange perspective was actually in fashion: the early 1930's 'Neue Sachlichkeit' when they tilted the camera, and the 1960's when extreme perspective effects due to extremeley short ranges were de rigueur. Maybe my immune system was activated then.

 

The old man from the Age of the Tripod

[lct]

...Were my subjects "flattered" or otherwise? - I really don't care...

 

[stunsworth]

ROFL - _thank_ you LCT for bringing a smile to my face on this grey Manchester morning <grin>.

 

Rules don't mean that there is only one way of doing something. Provided you know what you are doing, and what you want to achieve, they can be broken. Sometimes this will work, sometimes it won't, but it can be a learning experience.

[earleygallery]

Leica lenses are only ever meant to be used at infinity, that's why the used to fit infinity locks to them

 

In any given situation I just do what I need to get the picture I want - don't worry about focussing at x distance or using a smaller than optimum aperture. Its the image wot matters.

[stunsworth]

Its the image wot matters.

 

Or to put it another way, a slightly degraded image is better than no image at all.

 

Don't worry about it, press the button.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adan]

...the 1960's when extreme perspective effects due to extremeley short ranges were de rigueur.

 

Oddly, I just ran across one of David Bailey's books of his 60's work between my two previous posts - now THERE was someone whose perspective verged on the downright cruel in some of his celebrity portraits - minimum focus with 80 or 60 or 50 lenses on his Hassy.

 

I enjoy his stuff - but very little of my close-in work gets quite THAT - uh - intense.