Jump to content

A lens worthy of the new M6


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It just showed up.  Immediately took off my FLE and threw it into the trash (now there is the FLE II, the old one is worthless) and put this bad boy on.

 

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!

  • Like 6
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I quickly tried it on my M10r as I wanted to make sure light actually passes through it. (quality check #1 that Leica should adopt).

At 2.8.  Smeary as expected away from the center.  Sharper than expected in the center!  I guess it is accurately coupled to the RF!

 

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!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Huss said:

I quickly tried it on my M10r as I wanted to make sure light actually passes through it. (quality check #1 that Leica should adopt).

At 2.8.  Smeary as expected away from the center.  Sharper than expected in the center!  I guess it is accurately coupled to the RF!

 

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!

Bonus points for the lens, it takes away the sharpness off digital.

Please post some more when you get a chance.

Edited by Steve Ricoh
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Steve Ricoh said:

Bonus points for the lens, it takes away the sharpness of digital.

Please post some more when you get a chance.

Will do. Empirically this lens is garbage.  But if you want that look, then it's perfect!  Right tool for the job etc etc.

Amusingly, Light Room has a profile for this lens which corrects  - very significantly I might add - most of the flaws.  But if you're going to do that, why bother with this lens?  The raison d'etre is those flaws!  The profile turns the look of the pics from crap but interesting to crap and boring.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had similar results with the bottom of a beer bottle in custom housing. The hipsters went NUTS when I showed the pics to them.

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!

  • Like 2
  • Haha 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

I have had similar results with the bottom of a beer bottle in custom housing. The hipsters went NUTS when I showed the pics to them.

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!

Let me guess, Guinness?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I just realized on digital the Minatar lens gives a blue-ish tone that is very reminscent of the Fuji Classic Neg jpeg film sim profile!  So if you want your Leica images to have the same color tone as the Fuji film sim, use this lens.

Xpro3 w Classic Neg film sim:

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2n9LAAQ][img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51951417964_1d3f0e6dc3_b.jpg[/img][/url]

In more ‘serious’ news, I have noticed that the aperture markings are, shall we say, poop.  The only marking that accurately corresponds to the real aperture opening is 2.8.  After that, the real aperture is larger/bigger opening that the number indicated climaxing at marked f22, which in actual fact is only f11.
I didn’t notice this when I was using the m10r as I had it on auto ISO.  But with my M7, using Sunny f16 as a baseline, in blazing sunshine today f16 should have been 1/250.  But, stopping the lens all the way down to f22 still gave a 1/1000 reading.  So at least 2 stops off.  Just looking at the lens it was clear to see that f22 is actually about f11 judging by the size of the hole.

So this lens, in the condition I have it, is a f2.8 - f11 lens.  Not an f2.8 - f22 lens.  It doesn’t matter too much if you are using a camera with a ttl meter, as it will still accurately meter, you just ignore what it says on the lens.  Problem is if you want to use this lens on a camera w/o a built in meter, like my M-A, or an M4 etc.  

Anyway, I just got my colour film back and will see how this lens looks on film.  I’ll then decide whether to keep it, or return it because of the aperture issue.


 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget this lens on digital - it works so much better on film.  Some lenses just are not good on digital - the original Voigtlander 25, 21 and 15mm come to mind.

Leica M7, Lomo Minitar 32mm 2.8, Fuji C200

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!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Size reference for my 35mm lenses - ok the Lomo is 32mm, but you get the idea.

;)

 

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!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Love those C200 images - how much was done to the colours in post? - i.e. do these images reflect the colour I can expect from this film?

 

(msg to Windows - stop underlying 'colours', it is not spelled incorrectly!)

Edited by Mr.Prime
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

Love those C200 images - how much was done to the colours in post? - i.e. do these images reflect the colour I can expect from this film?

 

(msg to Windows - stop underlying 'colours', it is not spelled incorrectly!)

Yeah, even the pronunciation of color doesn’t sound right to me. I can’t make it sound like colour. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

Love those C200 images - how much was done to the colours in post? - i.e. do these images reflect the colour I can expect from this film?

 

(msg to Windows - stop underlying 'colours', it is not spelled incorrectly!)

Nothing was done to the colour in post.  I scan the film in RAW with my Z7, convert it using negativelabpro.com in lightroom.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...