Close focus mod - Summilux-M 35mm F1.4 Steel Rim reissue

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, lct said:

Summilux 35/1.4 v2 on Kolari mod A7r2 at about 0.7m below. Details in exif data. Could be worse but i'm not sure i would butcher my v2 for that.

Looks like something less than pleasant going on at the edges - field curvature?

[lct]

15 minutes ago, pgk said:

Looks like something less than pleasant going on at the edges - field curvature?

on which pic?

[Advertisement]

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

[M9reno]

3 minutes ago, lct said:

on which pic?

The curving of the bookshelves perhaps?

[pgk]

11 minutes ago, lct said:

on which pic?

Yes as shown on the bookshelves in the first image. The out of focus left hand side looks somewhat odd and the depth of field shift is rather abrupt, as though depth of field tails off quicker than anticipated. This is what might well happen if field curvature were to push the depth of field away from the camera at the edges of the frame. No doubt other aberrations kick in too. It rather reminds me of the problems with using an incorrectly positioned dome port underwater; which produces a strongly curved field which doesn't align with the entrance pupil of the lens.

[lct]

17 minutes ago, M9reno said:

The curving of the bookshelves perhaps?

Those handmade bookshelves have more distortion than the lens itself but i would not expect too much from a 1989 lens designed for 1m MFD and used 30cm closer at f/1.4 on a Sony camera with a close focus adapter. I expected worse results i must say. 

[yukosteel]

Thank you lct for good representative picture, yeah the A7r2 with Kolari Mod is great approximation and looks quite detailed. BTW, a side question - do you apply WB correction in post or managed to set it in camera? Most of my pictures on A7s UT Kolari Mod often have WB shit toward red corners, especially on wider M mount lens, and I almost gave up shooting with that set.

I wish I've spent more time with modified lens taking close-up pictures outdoor but at that point decided to ship it back ASAP for testing RF accuracy.

Fred posted few image samples that help to get initial impressions how closer focus performs comparing to standard MFD.

Personally I like the opportunity to use closer focus primarily for capturing object in the center or mid frame and like that increased blur of background.

[Simone_DF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 5/1/2023 at 7:33 AM, Pyrogallol said:

There seems to be an obsession with using rangefinder Leicas at very minimum focussing range and the lenses at maximum aperture. Not what the Leica rangefinder is designed to do best, even using live view and overcoming the viewfinder parallax alignment. Use an SLR and keep the Leica for middle distance pictures which it does best.

Well, people on this forum keep telling that if you want a EVF M, you should look at the SL. And Leica itself markets the SL as the best "other" camera for M lenses.

You can't have it both ways, either the SL is the fabled EVF M, and in that case, since it doesn't have a rangefinder the minimum focus distance on M lenses should be reduced for the benefit of SL users, or it's not a M replacement, and in that case people asking for e EVF M are correct 🤷‍♂️

[pgk]

2 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

You can't have it both ways, either the SL is the fabled EVF M, and in that case, since it doesn't have a rangefinder the minimum focus distance on M lenses should be reduced for the benefit of SL users, or it's not a M replacement, and in that case people asking for e EVF M are correct 🤷‍♂️

As I see it, the problem with the M is that it is what it is. How do you offer constant upgrades to a fully mature system. Easy, you modify it into something else. And you are right the latest closer focus M lenses are almost certainly intended for use with a EVF ...... . Close-up photography is difficult with the rangefinder, even if aids are added, or was traditionally via a visoflex which effectively created and unwieldy SLR, or may now be with an EVF. Personally, if I want close focus I will use a system and its lenses which are better suited to close focus. Actually I do.

Leaving the M alone in its mature rangefinder guise seems something Leica have always struggled to do and they have never learned from the history of trying to make it into something its not.

[lct]

49 minutes ago, yukosteel said:

BTW, a side question - do you apply WB correction in post or managed to set it in camera? Most of my pictures on A7s UT Kolari Mod often have WB shit toward red corners, especially on wider M mount lens, and I almost gave up shooting with that set.

I just remove the Sony color profile and adjust contrast and colors in PP the same way as for other cameras.

[Simone_DF]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

And you are right the latest closer focus M lenses are almost certainly intended for use with a EVF

Of course they are. The platform doesn't really matter. EVF M, SL or third party cameras via adapter are all viable platforms for Leica to sell more lenses, and an enhanced minimum focus distance makes it more attractive to potential buyers and reduce the gap with the competition that offers lenses in other mounts, with Voigtlander in the spotlight.

Sometimes M users seems to live in a bubble of their own, completely oblivious of the surrounding market, which is something Leica cannot afford to do. 

[pgk]

2 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Of course they are. The platform doesn't really matter. EVF M, SL or third party cameras via adapter are all viable platforms for Leica to sell more lenses, and an enhanced minimum focus distance makes it more attractive to potential buyers and reduce the gap with the competition that offers lenses in other mounts, with Voigtlander in the spotlight.

Sometimes M users seems to live in a bubble of their own, completely oblivious of the surrounding market, which is something Leica cannot afford to do. 

The problem is that there are far better and vastly cheaper options than close focus manual focus M lenses, whoever makes them. I just don't buy this idea.

[yukosteel]

Looks like there is no significant IQ degradation at 0.76m focus distance. I like this test set of shots taken by Fred Miranda, it's quite representative to better understand what that close focus offers. I've recomposed them into one-picture comparison below.

• First row shows default Steel Rim MFD shot, with bright frame indicating how much closer you can move camera to the object to take the shot on the right from 0.76m distance.
• Second row shows zoomed portion of left shot comparing to shot on the right.

What's important here, being able to move camera much closer to target you have wider range of perspective control. Even though that extra 0.14m distance sounds negligible, but change to perspective is significant. I think that many skillful photographers could find that extra flexibility quite useful and practical enough to prefer extended MFD comparing to default one. Leica M system rangefinder is still very precise at this distance and it's very easy to nail focus quick regardless of minor parallax.

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!

[hdmesa]

6 hours ago, pgk said:

The problem is that there are far better and vastly cheaper options than close focus manual focus M lenses...

You doubt there are strong sales of M lenses to those who adapt them to non-M bodies? Better and cheaper options have always been there.

[yossi]

2 hours ago, yukosteel said:

Looks like there is no significant IQ degradation at 0.76m focus distance. I like this test set of shots taken by Fred Miranda, it's quite representative to better understand what that close focus offers. I've recomposed them into one-picture comparison below.

• First row shows default Steel Rim MFD shot, with bright frame indicating how much closer you can move camera to the object to take the shot on the right from 0.76m distance.
• Second row shows zoomed portion of left shot comparing to shot on the right.

What's important here, being able to move camera much closer to target you have wider range of perspective control. Even though that extra 0.14m distance sounds negligible, but change to perspective is significant. I think that many skillful photographers could find that extra flexibility quite useful and practical enough to prefer extended MFD comparing to default one. Leica M system rangefinder is still very precise at this distance and it's very easy to nail focus quick regardless of minor parallax.

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!

Pictures speak louder than words 😀

[adan]

While I personally wouldn't take a grinder to a new M lens, I have no problem with the idea of closer focus with M lenses.

Always recall the Capa Dictum; "If your pictures aren't good enough, you weren't close enough!" Which I rephrase, for emphasis, as "If your aren't close enough, your pictures will not be good enough!"

- Leica and Schneider produced the 21mm Super-Angulons to focus down to 0.4 meters as early as the 1960s.

- As noted above, Leica themselves produced the 35 f/1.4 pre-ASPH in a 0.65m version.

- In 1980, Dr. Mandler retained (almost) the 0.7m standard when creating the 75mm Summilux (0.75m), which made it the tightest-framing M lens (absent a bulky Visoflex) until the 90mm Macro - close-focus of a 50, with (at least) 50% more magnification. Later, Peter Karbe went on down to 0.7m with the 75 APO-Summicron and 75 Summarit v.2 (f/2.4)

- In 1992, Leica themselves converted the 50mm f/1.4 Summilux pre-ASPH from 0.9m focusing to 0.7m.

To think it is something "not done with Leica M" is a mistake.

In general I have found the Leica M to go far beyond what many photographers think are its "limits," and the only real limits are not the M, but the imagination of the photographer. I've used an M for studio still-lifes with various 75s (currently the C/V f/1.5 Nokton) since the M8 era - at 0.7-0.75m (equivalent to a 50 focusing to 0.5m-ish).

Why not some other camera? Because an M combined with my imagination made it an unnecessary expense in cash, weight and shelf space. Thinking is cheaper than buying. 

And with the M viewfinder, I could see the studio flash going off!

Ferret and Fish, M4-2, 21mm Super-Angulon f/3.4 at 0.4m (and probably f/8), Velvia 50, 2003. Note it was the film era - no EVF available, let alone needed. The only extra gear was between my ears.  

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!

Mall Girl, M6, 24mm Elmarit-M at ~0.5m, Pan F, 2003. Again, no EVF possible.

In this case, I screwed a 55mm close-up lens onto the 24, and shot and processed a test roll of a ruler extending from the film plane, to figure out how the focus scale related to the actual focus distance (e.g. ∞ set on scale = 0.9m, min. focus (~0.65 actual) = 0.5m. Or something like that.)

I'd love it if the Elmar-M 21mm was upgraded to 0.4m focusing, just to get back this capability. Or maybe just get a 60mm CU lens for my old 21mm Elmarit non-ASPH - although with that lens there might be vignetting. With the instant feedback of digital, it'll take less than a minute to "calibrate," this time.  

[jakontil]

1 hour ago, adan said:

While I personally wouldn't take a grinder to a new M lens, I have no problem with the idea of closer focus with M lenses.

Always recall the Capa Dictum; "If your pictures aren't good enough, you weren't close enough!" Which I rephrase, for emphasis, as "If your aren't close enough, your pictures will not be good enough!"

- Leica and Schneider produced the 21mm Super-Angulons to focus down to 0.4 meters as early as the 1960s.

- As noted above, Leica themselves produced the 35 f/1.4 pre-ASPH in a 0.65m version.

- In 1980, Dr. Mandler retained (almost) the 0.7m standard when creating the 75mm Summilux (0.75m), which made it the tightest-framing M lens (absent a bulky Visoflex) until the 90mm Macro - close-focus of a 50, with (at least) 50% more magnification. Later, Peter Karbe went on down to 0.7m with the 75 APO-Summicron and 75 Summarit v.2 (f/2.4)

- In 1992, Leica themselves converted the 50mm f/1.4 Summilux pre-ASPH from 0.9m focusing to 0.7m.

To think it is something "not done with Leica M" is a mistake.

In general I have found the Leica M to go far beyond what many photographers think are its "limits," and the only real limits are not the M, but the imagination of the photographer. I've used an M for studio still-lifes with various 75s (currently the C/V f/1.5 Nokton) since the M8 era - at 0.7-0.75m (equivalent to a 50 focusing to 0.5m-ish).

Why not some other camera? Because an M combined with my imagination made it an unnecessary expense in cash, weight and shelf space. Thinking is cheaper than buying. 

And with the M viewfinder, I could see the studio flash going off!

Ferret and Fish, M4-2, 21mm Super-Angulon f/3.4 at 0.4m (and probably f/8), Velvia 50, 2003. Note it was the film era - no EVF available, let alone needed. The only extra gear was between my ears.  

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!

Mall Girl, M6, 24mm Elmarit-M at ~0.5m, Pan F, 2003. Again, no EVF possible.

In this case, I screwed a 55mm close-up lens onto the 24, and shot and processed a test roll of a ruler extending from the film plane, to figure out how the focus scale related to the actual focus distance (e.g. ∞ set on scale = 0.9m, min. focus (~0.65 actual) = 0.5m. Or something like that.)

I'd love it if the Elmar-M 21mm was upgraded to 0.4m focusing, just to get back this capability. Or maybe just get a 60mm CU lens for my old 21mm Elmarit non-ASPH - although with that lens there might be vignetting. With the instant feedback of digital, it'll take less than a minute to "calibrate," this time.  

I love the velvia 50 and that close up portraits are amazing, no compromised done on quality too.. 

it would be amazing if the reissue SR can focus closer than 1m, but i think i would just enjoy what the OP is producing 

[yossi]

1 hour ago, adan said:

>>

In general I have found the Leica M to go far beyond what many photographers think are its "limits," and the only real limits are not the M, but the imagination of the photographer. 

Ferret and Fish, M4-2, 21mm Super-Angulon f/3.4 at 0.4m (and probably f/8), Velvia 50, 2003. Note it was the film era - no EVF available, let alone needed. The only extra gear was between my ears.  

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!

W

Mall Girl, M6, 24mm Elmarit-M at ~0.5m, Pan F, 2003. Again, no EVF possible.

I

Words of wisdom!  And love that Velvia shot.  Bravo👍

[Simone_DF]

10 hours ago, pgk said:

The problem is that there are far better and vastly cheaper options than close focus manual focus M lenses, whoever makes them. I just don't buy this idea.

I agree there are better options, but I suspect Leica would prefer to sell Leica lenses to SL users, not Voigtlander or Zeiss or TTArtisan lenses.

I think the recent free M-L adapter promotion is a good example of that:

https://leicacamerausa.com/pages/offers/free-m-adapter-l.html

"These lenses are perfectly adapted to the SL-System, where they can pair up with the 47mp sensor of the SL2 or the 24mp BSI-sensor of the SL2-S and be easily focused through the high-resolution EVF with focus peaking."

So, if Leica wants to sell M lenses to SL users, and they certainly do since they are actively marketing it, the minimum focus distance should not be limited by the rangefinder and be on par with lenses from other manufacturers, especially considering the price point and the expectation of quality. It's that simple.

You may not buy this idea, but Leica does.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, Simone_DF said:

I agree there are better options, but I suspect Leica would prefer to sell Leica lenses to SL users, not Voigtlander or Zeiss or TTArtisan lenses.

I think the recent free M-L adapter promotion is a good example of that:

https://leicacamerausa.com/pages/offers/free-m-adapter-l.html

"These lenses are perfectly adapted to the SL-System, where they can pair up with the 47mp sensor of the SL2 or the 24mp BSI-sensor of the SL2-S and be easily focused through the high-resolution EVF with focus peaking."

So, if Leica wants to sell M lenses to SL users, and they certainly do since they are actively marketing it, the minimum focus distance should not be limited by the rangefinder and be on par with lenses from other manufacturers, especially considering the price point and the expectation of quality. It's that simple.

You may not buy this idea, but Leica does.

Indeed, they are undoubtedly intended for use on the SL. But the SL is not a rangefinder ....... .

So we are moving away from the M rangefinder system with close focus M lenses and as I have said before, the M rangefinder is a mature system with few refinements needed or available. Sure you can use closer focus lenses with an M (I've done so and it is possible as Adan points out; with experience and care) but its unweildy way to work and can be very tricky. How many people want to spend vast sums on bodies and lenses which are hard/difficult to use? 

We go around these cicular arguments ad infinitum on the forum. If Leica can sell more M lenses because they can focus closer then that is good for Leica and at least they are being very honest with their marketing in the above quote😀. My guess is that Leica would like to see more M users adding an SL type camera to their kitbag, which can make better use of M close focus lenses .......

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to foresee that most, if not all, Leica M lenses will sooner or later be adapted to the cameras for which they are intended, which implies, necessarily, both RF and LV capabilities. This includes, at the very least, the same close focus capabilities as CV and ZM lenses IMHO. BTW, as @adan recalled above, a legacy lens like the Super-Angulon 21/3.4 has a 0.4m MFD, while non-Leica M lenses, like CV 15/4.5 or ZM 21/4.5, did go down for many years to 0.5m.